I'm not one for explicitly mixing military command, and religiosity (which is different from personal religion or faith); as Boykin is known for doing. I'm also loathe to use CBN as a source, given some of the things they've broadcast in the past...
But this man is speaking the unvarnished truth.
If there's a man on this planet who knows a terrorist when he sees one, and how to deal with him; it's Jerry Boykin.
There's a lot more to Boykins background than what they briefly mention in this segment.
Look at the mans record (what parts of it are publicly available anyway. There's enough there that a bright boy should be able to figure it out).
For almost 40 years, this mans life has utterly revolved around two things: God, and counter-terrorism. The fact that he sees these two things as explicitly linked may disturb some sensibilities, but it does not invalidate his knowledge and experience.
If for some reason you want to discount what this man is saying because of his religious views, or how he chooses to express them... You're a damn fool.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 3: Going Long, for Short
You know that old saying "Good, Fast, Cheap; pick two", that is applied so often to racing, construction, computers... hell almost anything harder than falling off a log?
Well, it applies to shooting too; all you need to do is change a couple of the operators. "range, precision, price; pick two"
For over a year, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy".
The point of the project is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
This is a no compromise project. I'm not saying that cost is no object, because I don't believe in spending money just for its own sake; but I'm not going to lose significant capability, just to save a few dollars.
I'm also not going to buy "just enough", even if it saves a LOT of money. Go down that road a few times, and the "just enoughs" multiply together to make "not quite enough"... and then where are you?
However, that doesn't mean you need to spend a fortune to get into long range shooting.
As part of the whole process, I'm writing a series of articles about my choices, how and why I came to them; and about long range and high precision shooting in general.
In talking, and writing, about all of this, I realized there was going to be a LOT more written about the side topics, and answering my readers questions, than there was about the actual rifle itself.
By far the number two question I get asked (the number one is "are you crazy? 1000 yards is FAR"), whenever I mention what I'm building ... and especially when I mention how much it's going to cost is:
"How can I get into long distance shooting, cheaply"
Well, the short answer is, you can't.
You can't do anything well, while doing it cheaply.
If you're smart though, you can do it relatively inexpensively.
You do that, by buying for VALUE, not for PRICE.
A $400 WalMart/BassPro scope and rifle combo isn't going to have you shooting under 1moa at 1000 yards, ever. In fact, you're lucky if it will do 2moa at 300, and if it will stay on the paper at 600 it'll be a miracle.
That's cheap. That's buying for price, not for value; and that's what you get.
But, as I said above, you don't have to spend a fortune to shoot out to 1000 yards (though if you're going to shoot much beyond 1000, you really DO need to spend a fortune. Just be warned. The laws of physics, and the multiplication of errors do catch up).
So, how to get started?
Well the first thing, is really to figure out if you're absolutely sure you want to do this.
Even doing it "on the cheap" aint actually cheap. This is an expensive hobby. More importantly, it's an enormously TIME CONSUMING hobby.
It's not just the shooting part, it's the loading, and the research, and the practice, and the driving... oh lord the endless endless driving (long range shooting sites tend to be FAAAAAAR away from... pretty much anything).
You're talking, at minimum, several hundred hours per year time commitment.
If you have a dozen other hobbies that take up a dozen hours a week... It's going to be really hard to do this.
If you have an infant, or an 80 hour a week job, or you're homeschooling your kids... It's going to be really hard to do this (and your wife will probably kill you).
There's a lot of folks who get a little bit of the bug, and want to investigate further. Like Col Townshend Whelen said "Only accurate rifles are interesting".
Unfortunately, this is a fiddly and frustrating business, and it's not for everyone. Even if you really have a hankering to shoot 1moa at 1000 yards, you may find it's just not worth your time, money, or trouble.
I'll use myself as an example
When I was 16, I thought the best I could shoot was around 1 moa at 300 yards.
That's better than most hunters shoot... and in fact better than most shooters of any type. Most people are pretty happy with that.
I'm not most people.
In my late teens and early 20s, I got into slightly longer range shooting. After a few years, I found that I could hit consistently at under 1moa at 600 yards.
The funny thing was though, it wasn't a gradual progression of being more and more precise at longer and longer ranges.
One day, I was able to group 1moa at 300 yards, but no better than 3moa at 600. The next day, I was shooting 1 moa at 600.
It's like I broke through a wall. One second I couldn't do it, the next I could.
That wall was in my way for about 3 years; and those weren't idle years without practicing. I was shooting several hundred rounds a week, every week. At least 50 rounds of that was on precision rifle every week, sometimes as much as 200.
The a few years later, I decided to try some longer range shooting, and I started to try reaching out to 800 yards.
Again, I was able to shoot 1 moa at 600, but couldn't do better than 3 moa at 800.
Until one day I could. Another wall, another breakthrough.
For another few years after that, I couldn't shoot past 800 at all. My groups were all over the place. I couldn't even consistently put 5 shots into a half sheet of plywood (4.6 moa at 1000).
Then one day, three or four years ago, I sat down behind a friends gun, and I shot into about 3 moa at 1000 yards. Then I did it again... and again... sometimes I'd shoot into 2moa, sometimes 3; but I was suddenly better than I had been before.
Now, when I keep my practice up (and it takes a lot of practice), and with the right gun, I can shoot one MOA at 800 yards pretty consistently; but I can only manage 2-3 at 1000 yards.
The problem I have at the moment is that I don't have enough time to practice it, and I haven't had a good enough rifle so that my practice would be useful (you should always have a gun that shoots better than you do, otherwise you don't know if it's you or the gun).
That's why I'm building my 1000 yard gun. I plan on getting to under 1moa at 1000 yards. I don't know how long it's going to take me. Maybe I won't ever be able to break through this wall; but I believe I can, and I intend to do it in style.
Ok, I REALLY want to do this... how much is it actually going to cost?
The first thing you need to understand, is that the cost of the rifle, and the glass, is just the beginning.
You're going to spend FAR more over the life of the rifle on ammunition than you ever do on the rifle. You're going to spend far more on travel. You're going to spend far more on gear. You're going to spend far more on training.
Starting to get the picture?
But how much can ammo possibly cost?
Hmmm, have you been shopping for ammo lately?
Well, first question here is actually, "what are we going to chamber the rifle in", because that will determine the cost of shooting the thing.
Oh and you can't just take into account the cost of ammunition, you also have to account for the cost of barrels.
Yes Virginia, barrels wear out. They are a consumable item, just like ammunition; and different chamberings wear out barrels at different rates.
There are any number of chamberings that will get you out to (and a few beyond) 1000 yards, with sufficient precision. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head, and for an experienced handloader, or benchrest shooter (who are almost always both), any of them could be a worthy selection.
Unfortunately, unless you are into SERIOUS high precision reloading (and if you get at all serious about long range shooting, you will be eventually; but let's assume you're just starting out) you really only have two choices at anything approaching reasonable cost:
308 Winchester, or .300 Winchester magnum (which actually use the same diameter bullets, in different cases).
That may change soon enough; the .300wsm and several of the 6mm and 6.5mm long range cartridges are developing enough of a following that the price and availability of factory ammunition is getting much better; but for now, it's .308win and .300wm.
Also, some may disagree, and choose a .284 caliber, like the 7mm-08, 7mm Remington Magnum, the 7mm wsm, the 7mm saum etc...
The 7mm chamberings have probably the best balance between ballistic efficiency, recoil, and mass, of any common chambering... but for some reason, have comparatively little factory support.
The 7mm magnum is a very popular chambering (second most popular magnum in the U.S. behind .300wm... at least until the .300wsm overtakes it some time in the next few years at the going rate); but for some reason there is a distinct shortage of heavy weight, high ballistic coefficient factory loads available in the chambering (unlike .300wm for example, which has plenty of loads over 180gr available).
I particularly don't understand this, given the availability of really excellent bullets like the Berger 180gr VLD; which is more ballistically efficient (G7BC of .337, G1BC of .659) than any currently existing .308 caliber bullet (as are used in .300wm).
In fact, it may be the most ballistically efficient bullet in any chambering below the .338 (commonly used for 1500 yard+ shooting); and even then, only bullets over .300 gr. can best it.
The 180gr VLD can can be propelled at higher velocity from the 7mm magnum, than the best performing .308 bullets (210gr Bergers) can in the .300wm; with a flatter trajectory (20" less drop at 1000 yards, with the same retained energy), 125 yards more supersonic range, and substantially lower recoil.
The 7mm-08; which is a .308 case necked down to 7mm; outperforms the .308 similarly.
It really is a mystery to me, why there aren't more loads like this available from the factory.
Unfortunately, right now, as with the 6.5s and all the short magnums; I don't believe the .284s/7mms have sufficient factory support to be a viable choice for the beginner, when compared against the .308 or .300wm.
Of the two, .308 win is a fair bit cheaper to shoot (both in ammo, and in barrel life), and has far less recoil (though I personally don't find .300wm to be taxing); but has a couple hundred yards less useful range.
Basically, the .308 is marginal at 1000 yards, has no range beyond it, and won't do 1000 consistently in any kind of wind. The .300wm is solid out to 1250 yards, and can do 1000 consistently in 10 knot winds.
The tradeoff is 50% more recoil, half the barrel life, more expensive ammo and components, and more irritation in reloading (the .300wm is a belted magnum case, which are more difficult to reload).
So, the real question is, how much are you going to be shooting at 1000 yards, vs 600-800 yards, and how much shooting are you going to be doing in windy conditions? Because out to 800 yards, the .308 is just fine, at up to 10 knots wind. It's only that last 200 yards that kills it.
In general, my recommendation for a someone just getting in to long range shooting, is go for the .308 until you are hitting consistently under 2moa at 800 yards. That's when you can really use the capability of the winmag.
I personally followed that same prescription. I shot 600 to 800 yards almost exclusively with .308 (up to 600 yards I use a match grade AR firing 75gr max pressure loads), until I managed to get consistent at 800 yards, and my .308 couldn't give me the results I wanted at longer ranges. That's when I bought a .300 winmag practice rifle, and started to build up my custom 1000 yard rifle.
Shots Per Dollar, or Dollars Per Shot?
Now as to the actual costs of shooting, I'll steal from one of my other posts where I did a detailed analysis of the costs of shooting 10,000 rounds of match grade ammo (reloading, and including barrels).
From a cost perspective the .308win is, hands down, the winner. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range). Even top quality brass is only (lapua, norma, nosler) $0.70-$0.90 a case, with Winchester brass at $0.30 for only slightly less quality (enough so that most shooters use it). Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with another AT LEAST 10 practice loads.
All in all, it's a great value.
I choose to use Berger bullets, Federal or CCI match primers, Hodgdon powder, and top quality match grade brass.
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45. The powder will cost $22 per pound. The barrels will be $600 (including labor to chamber and mount).
So to be conservative, that's:
Doing the same thing with factory match grade .308 (Federal, Black Hills, Norma, Nosler, or Lapua) will run you about $1.50 to $2 a round in bulk (of course, you'll have 10,000 really nice brass cases to reload at the end of it). In .300wm it's more like $2 to $2.50 a round.
Neither cost of course includes the barrel (or two barrels for the winmag) that you'll shoot through, so tack on an extra $0.06 or $0.12 per round.
Comparing the cost of reloading, to the cost of factory match grade ammo; it is immediately obvious why just about everyone at all serious about long range shooting, ends up being serious about precision reloading as well.
So, that's anywhere from $8000 all the way up to $27,000 in consumables over a 10,000 round shooting period (at most, 5 years of serious shooting).
Are we there yet?
We're not quite ready to get to the cost of the rifle and scope yet, no.
There's a whole other additional cost in 1000 yard shooting gear.
If you're just getting started we can say that you can live without it for now; but you aren't going to get very far along without at least a range finder, and a spotting scope.
If you want to shoot at 1000 yards on anything other than a measured, known distance range, you need to be able to get an ACCURATE distance to your target.
The cheapest way to do that WELL, is with a $400 to $600 rangefinder. Right now, Bushnell (yes, really. They DO occaisonally make good stuff), Nikon, Newcon Optik, and Leica all make rangefinders that will do the job in that price range, at least under good conditions.
I recommend the Leica, which unsurprisingly is the most expensive. The others will get it done, but not as well, or in the same conditions as the Leica will.
Also, you can't practice your shooting, if you can't see what you're hitting, and where you're hitting it. For that, you need a spotting scope; and a cheapy won't do at 1000 yards.
The lowest cost models you're looking at that will actually do the job well enough to get by at 1000 yards; are the 80mm or 100mm extended definition models from Konus, Vortex, or Celestron. They run from $600 to $800.
DO NOT buy a spotting scope smaller than 80mm for this task, and don't buy one that isn't "extended definition" or "extra low dispersion" (if the scope costs over $2k, it's in there. If it uses flourite lenses, and costs more than $600, it's probably in there). They just can't resolve at range well enough to do the job.
Note, that doesn't mean they'll be able to spot a .30 caliber hole at 1000 yards (you're going to need a MUCH more expensive scope for that). But you'll be able to read your 300 yard holes just fine... maybe even your 600 yard holes (or at least the lead smear/black ring). Use some shoot-n-sees for 600 and 800 (presuming you aren't using reactives or gongs. most do) and you'll be golden.
With a reasonable quality scope at 100 yards; you WILL be able to see the inch wide smears of lead you leave on a thick piece of fluorescent orange painted steel, or the big hole you ripped in the similarly painted sheet of plywood, or whether you broke the cheap dinner plate, or knocked down the 16" popper etc... Which you won't be able to see with your naked eye, and may or may not be able to see clearly with your rifle scope (depending on your eyes, and how much you spend on said rifle scope. )
The next step up is a Kowa at about twice the price. Kowa is who most competitive shooters use, as the best compromise between quality, and price.
The next step up from there, is half again as much, up to twice as much; for a Swarovski, Leica, or other high end Swiss/Austrian/German piece.
I'll be going into WAY TOO MUCH detail on this subject in a later post.
Ok, NOW we can get into how much the rifle is going to cost
Again, I'm going to steal a quote from another piece to start this one off.
You should note that almost $8000 baseline cost of consumables before you start thinking about how much the rifle is going to cost.
Are you prepared to spend that much and more, just on shooting this rifle? If not, stop now; because no matter how much or how little the rifle costs, there's no point if you can't pay for the consumables.
Ok, got that firmly fixed in your mind?
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1400 and $1200 respectively; and go up into the $5000 and $4000 range.
That's between $2600 and say $9000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel) for anything from the top end of factory offerings and bottom end of the "good glass"; all the way up to the best of the best custom work.
The most common advice you'll hear experienced gunnies (but NOT experienced long range shooters) give to the less experienced goes something like this:
"You don't need to spend a lot of money to shoot well. Most rifles will shoot better than their owners. Buy something decent, but low priced. Don't buy too much rifle, or too much scope. Save the money you would have spent on extra ammo to practice with".
Often it's followed by something like "don't waste your money on all that. You'll do just fine with a factory Remington, and a Leupold. It'll shoot better than you do."
Well, first, let's leave aside the fact that these days a factory Remington and a Leupold can run you nearly as much as low end custom rifle with a Night Force on it, and probably won't shoot nearly as well...
For hunters, and casual target shooters (and if this is your first long range gun, you don't know if this is going to just be a casual thing for you or not yet. You might end up not liking it, or not having the time for it) that's great advice.
For serious match shooters, or those who intend to become serious match shooters though... Eh, not so much.
So yeah, don't waste your money buy jumping into a huge purchase before you KNOW you're serious about it. As I said, you may not like it, and you may not have the time for it.
Once you know that you're definitely interested in getting serious though, it's time to spend some money; and this is where I want to point back to that cost of consumables from above.
$2400, or hell even $7k (and for $7k you can get a top of the line custom rifle, with top of the line glass) is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Are you done trying to scare me off?
Ok, yes, I'm done trying to scare you off. Let's talk about where to really get started.
My advice for the person interested in getting into long range shooting, is to borrow a friends long range rifle if you can, and see if you like it.
If you don't, great, you wont be bankrupting yourself unnecessarily for something you don't enjoy or have the time for.
If you DO... well, as Obi Wan almost said "You've taken your first step into a much more expensive world"
To get started with your OWN rifle, my suggestion is buy yourself a either one of the Savage model 12s (there are a LOT of different configurations), or a TC encore.
You can either buy one of the heavy barreled varmint/match/target/benchrest stock versions of the Savage; or buy the cheapest model 12, and replace the stock and barrel with higher end ones.
The top end factory Savages run about $1400 street. The midrange models with reasonable stocks and barrels run about $800 street.
The lowest end models run about $600 street, but their stocks and barrels are iffy. Replacement stocks with aluminum bedding blocks run from $300 to $600. Replacement match grade barrels, run from $400 to $600.
You can also just buy an accurized model 12 action with trigger for about $600 (though you can sometimes find a discount dealer who will sell them to you for $400 or $450), and a separate stock and barrel; again, for anywhere from $700 to $1300.
So, if you're really smart about it, you might be able to build up a top quality Savage for around $1100; and in general the price spread will be $800 to $1600 depending on exactly what features you want and who you're buying from.
You can (and probably should) do the same kind of buildup with the Encore; because the factory .308 and .300wm barrels are OK, but not great.
A factory Encore in .308 will run around $600, to $700, depending on whether you buy blued or stainless, and of course on who is selling it (list is up to $800, but who pays list).
A factory Encore receiver with pistol stock (you normally can't buy it without a stock set of some kind, and even if you do, it's not any cheaper) is about $325, or about $350 with a rifle stock and forend (or $50 to $100 more for stainless). Every once in a while you can get someone to sell either to you for $300 blue or $350 stainless.
A top grade Encore barrel in .308. from a maker like Bullberry (one of the best in the business) will run from $400 to $500 depending on length, and whether it's blued or stainless. A slightly lower end maker might run as low as $300.
If you want a custom stock set to go with it, that will run another $300-$600 from Bullberry; and it will be MUCH nice than factory ($600 gets you something worth giving to your grandkids).
All that's going to run you from as little as $600 to as much as $1600 if you splurge on the more expensive configurations or barrel and stock, for either rifle.
Oh and stick a decent bipod, sling swivels, a GOOD rail, and a limbsaver or decelerator on either (even on a .308. You may change chamberings later, and you'll want the pad... plus the encore can be VERY light, and the stock buttpad is not forgiving).
That'll run you $100 to $300 extra depending on what configuration you bought your rifle, barrel, and stock in (some of them will have a rail, a good pad, and sling swivels installed already).
So let's call it $900 to $1700, with a happy medium somewhere around $1200 or so.
What about that "buy a factory Remington, it'll shoot better than you do" advice?
As it happens, the factory Remington with the closest performance to either of the options I've talked about here (and I don't think it will match either one) is the "700 Target Tactical", which lists out at $2,000, and streets at about $1700.
The "XCR long range tactical", a much lower end model, is $1400 list, and around $1200 street. It has a decent Bell and Carlson stock on it, and a 40x trigger; so it should preform reasonably well... though again, not as well as the Savage or Encore.
With ANY of the Remington factory options, you'd still be stuck with a production Remington Barrel, rather than a Krieger or a Bullberry; although on some of the models, they have decent profiles and crowns, and 5r rifling available.
This isn't to say the Remington barrels are BAD, but they certainly aren't AS GOOD, as Krieger, Lilja, Hart etc...
If it were my money, and I were buying a factory Remington only (no custom shop) with boltons and parts swaps allowed; I'd buy the VLS (about $800 street), and replace the trigger with a Jewell HVR ($240); or an SPS varmint (about $550 street) and replace the trigger with the Jewell and the stock with a Bell and Carlson($300).
Except it it were my money, I wouldn't be buying a Remington at all. Not when I could buy the Savage; or a Howa 1100 or Weatherby Vanguard Sub-moa (same rifle, different furniture and branding); for their current street pricing.
Unless you feel like spending $2500+ with Remingtons custom shop (at which point you get a rifle equal to any $2500+ custom rifle. Those guys really know what they're doing); at any price point you can name, you're going to be able to buy or build a rifle from another vendor, that will outshoot the Remington at that price point.
The same goes for Winchester, or Browning by the way (technically the same company as it happens, operating under two different names - the parent company is FNH out of Belgium. They're even making rifles in the same factory now).
This is not to say there aren't great precision options in the Model 70 and A-Bolt families; they're just much more expensive for what you get than building your own Savage.
Marlin isn't even competing in the precision bolt rifle market... though why would they, considering they are owned by Remington (who is in turn, owned by Cerberus).
The new TC Icon bolt action is interesting, but it's an all new design, and there aren't any accessories, stocks, barrels etc... out there for it yet.
The fundamentals are there however, with a nice adjustable trigger, 60 degree three lug bolt, aluminum bedding block system, and a very decent 5R rifled barrel.
TC is even offering a tactical model they call the "warlord", with a Manners T2A stock, Badger bottom metal and AI magazines, fluted 5R barrel with 1:10 twist offered (so you can shoot bullets over 180gr), a built in 20moa rail (for 1000 yard shooting in .308with most decent scopes); and a 1/2moa at 100 yards guarantee.
There are only two problems with it I can find:
First, the barrel is only 22" long (so you lose a couple hundred fps on hot loads vs. a 26" barrel which I prefer for long range shooting).
Second, the damn thing costs $3,000.
Now, I'm guessing it's going to be just as good as any other $3,000 custom rifle... But for $3k I'm going for full custom.
Alright, what about the glass?
I've done a lot of posts about scopes; and I'm about to do two more, so I won't go into detail here; I'll just make a couple of general suggestions, and give you a price range.
To get started with long range shooting, buy a very decent, but not overly expensive scope, with a maximum power around 14-16x, and a 40mm through 50mm objective.
You can go higher powered, but don't go above around 22x or 25x.
Something like the Bushnell Elite 4200 line ($600-$700), the Burris XTR ($800-$900) , the Nikon Monarch X ($750-$950), the Pentax Lightseeker 30 ($550-$750) the lower end Zeiss Conquest ($800-$1100), the Vortex Viper ($500-$700) etc...
Basically something in the $500-$600 range, up to the $900-$1000 price range, fully multicoated with ED glass; and enough elevation to get you to 1000 in .308 with a 20moa base (an absolute minimum of 30moa total adjustment, with more like 50moa being better. That gets you 450" of elevation above a 300 yard zero at 1000 yards, which is more than enough).
If you go below this price range in a variable scope, in this magnification range; it's not going to do the job. The optical quality just wont be sufficient, and the durability and repeatability of adjustments are likely to be pore.
On the other hand, you don't need to go above this price range to shoot at 1000 yards and under; at least in decent conditions, and bright sunlight.
You might be able to go to a fixed power scope for less, but not much (the excellent Leupold high power fixed target scopes run around $500... and they're a spectacular value for money); and unless you're shooting on a fixed known distance range, I MUCH prefer a variable.
Realistically, in this price range, you pay more and you get more optical quality, features, and durability; almost linearly.
Oh and the classic gunnies advice "just buy a Leupold" ?
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with Leupolds; they're the default choice for a lot of shooters; and I still recommend them if you want a high magnification fixed power scope... But have you SEEN Leupolds pricing over the past few years?
On the higher end, Leupold is charging almost as much as Night Force... About $1500 for their equivalent to the $1600 NF; with lower optical quality and less toughness. In the midrange, I think you're getting $600 worth of scope, when Leupold is charging $900.
Personally, I think Burris is offering the best value for money out there right now, in their higher end models. The XTR line are probably the best balance of features, quality, and price, on the market today, at about $800-$900
At the low end of our price scale, I'm also hearing a lot of really good things about Vortexes Viper line (their low end lines are crap like everyone elses under $300 scopes are), at around $500-$600; but I have no direct experience.
Oh, and I'm not going to go into specifics on rings, mounts, and rails except to say, don't cheap out here. A $30 set of rings on a $20 rail is going to be about as precise and repeatable as you would expect any $50 piece of kit to be (i.e. NOT).
So for whatever+x dollars, will it shoot?
If you're smart about it, for anywhere from $1300, to $2600, rifle and glass; you can get a rig that will shoot 1000 yards all day long.
In general, the more you spend in that price range (presuming you're bargaining well), the more consistent and precise your combination is going to be, and the easier it will be to hit at range; but the value "sweet spot" on the rifle is likely around $1100-$1200, and on the glass around $800.
So let's call it $1900-$2000 for the sweet spot, rifle and glass. For that money, you're getting a great trigger, a great barrel, a decent stock, and a decent tactical scope.
Call it a Savage Model 12 precision action, with a Bell and Carlson stock, a Krieger Barrel, and a Burris XTR tactical. That combo right there would run right at about $1900-$2000 including a bipod, swivels, recoil pad etc....
If you just wanted to maximize value completely, and not have any extras, you could build up a single shot Encore, blued with factory stock, a Bullberry barrel, a Vortex tactical scope, and a Harris bipod; for $1400 all up.
Frankly, that's cheaper than buying a straight up factory hunting rifle and mid grade hunting glass.
The great thing about buying this way is though, even if you find out you don't like, or don't have time for, long range precision shooting; you've still got a great rifle and scope, that are useful for hunting, and general target shooting, and you haven't paid too much extra for the capability you won't use.
This is why I recommend the Savage and the Encore specifically. They are the most easily built up, and upgraded, precision rifles out there.
For a few hundred dollars, you can take any Savage or Encore, and put a SERIOUS match grade barrel in it, without any gunsmithing. Both already come with excellent triggers, that can be tuned for little or no money. Both can be fitted with serious target shooting stocks, again, without any gunsmithing.
And most importantly, for that money, they'll really shoot.
No, barring a miracle "golden sample" you're not going to get under 1moa accuracy at 1000 yards with one (or likely even 800 yards); but yeah, they're going to shoot.
In comparison, the receiver alone for my 1000 yard rifle cost $900, the trigger $300, the stock $700, the bottom metal $300, the barrel $600, and the bits and bobs (rails, sling swivels, bipod etc..) another $200 (all costs including labor). Then the scope and rings are going to cost another $3,500 or so on top of that.
Call it somewhere around $7k total.
Basically, when you buy a Savage or an Encore, you've got something that doesn't cost a lot to break in with; but that can be upgraded later, for a lot less money than other platforms; so you can grow with it as you get better, and demand more out of your equipment.
Will your $1400 Encore and Vortex, or your $1900 Savage and Burris outshoot my $6,000 custom rig?
Not a chance in hell.
But will it outshoot 95% of the rifles out there?
Absolutely... and you may not outshoot my rifle, but you might outshoot me.
Well, it applies to shooting too; all you need to do is change a couple of the operators. "range, precision, price; pick two"
For over a year, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy".
The point of the project is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
This is a no compromise project. I'm not saying that cost is no object, because I don't believe in spending money just for its own sake; but I'm not going to lose significant capability, just to save a few dollars.
I'm also not going to buy "just enough", even if it saves a LOT of money. Go down that road a few times, and the "just enoughs" multiply together to make "not quite enough"... and then where are you?
However, that doesn't mean you need to spend a fortune to get into long range shooting.
As part of the whole process, I'm writing a series of articles about my choices, how and why I came to them; and about long range and high precision shooting in general.
In talking, and writing, about all of this, I realized there was going to be a LOT more written about the side topics, and answering my readers questions, than there was about the actual rifle itself.
By far the number two question I get asked (the number one is "are you crazy? 1000 yards is FAR"), whenever I mention what I'm building ... and especially when I mention how much it's going to cost is:
"How can I get into long distance shooting, cheaply"
Well, the short answer is, you can't.
You can't do anything well, while doing it cheaply.
If you're smart though, you can do it relatively inexpensively.
You do that, by buying for VALUE, not for PRICE.
A $400 WalMart/BassPro scope and rifle combo isn't going to have you shooting under 1moa at 1000 yards, ever. In fact, you're lucky if it will do 2moa at 300, and if it will stay on the paper at 600 it'll be a miracle.
That's cheap. That's buying for price, not for value; and that's what you get.
But, as I said above, you don't have to spend a fortune to shoot out to 1000 yards (though if you're going to shoot much beyond 1000, you really DO need to spend a fortune. Just be warned. The laws of physics, and the multiplication of errors do catch up).
So, how to get started?
Well the first thing, is really to figure out if you're absolutely sure you want to do this.
Even doing it "on the cheap" aint actually cheap. This is an expensive hobby. More importantly, it's an enormously TIME CONSUMING hobby.
It's not just the shooting part, it's the loading, and the research, and the practice, and the driving... oh lord the endless endless driving (long range shooting sites tend to be FAAAAAAR away from... pretty much anything).
You're talking, at minimum, several hundred hours per year time commitment.
If you have a dozen other hobbies that take up a dozen hours a week... It's going to be really hard to do this.
If you have an infant, or an 80 hour a week job, or you're homeschooling your kids... It's going to be really hard to do this (and your wife will probably kill you).
There's a lot of folks who get a little bit of the bug, and want to investigate further. Like Col Townshend Whelen said "Only accurate rifles are interesting".
Unfortunately, this is a fiddly and frustrating business, and it's not for everyone. Even if you really have a hankering to shoot 1moa at 1000 yards, you may find it's just not worth your time, money, or trouble.
I'll use myself as an example
When I was 16, I thought the best I could shoot was around 1 moa at 300 yards.
That's better than most hunters shoot... and in fact better than most shooters of any type. Most people are pretty happy with that.
I'm not most people.
In my late teens and early 20s, I got into slightly longer range shooting. After a few years, I found that I could hit consistently at under 1moa at 600 yards.
The funny thing was though, it wasn't a gradual progression of being more and more precise at longer and longer ranges.
One day, I was able to group 1moa at 300 yards, but no better than 3moa at 600. The next day, I was shooting 1 moa at 600.
It's like I broke through a wall. One second I couldn't do it, the next I could.
That wall was in my way for about 3 years; and those weren't idle years without practicing. I was shooting several hundred rounds a week, every week. At least 50 rounds of that was on precision rifle every week, sometimes as much as 200.
The a few years later, I decided to try some longer range shooting, and I started to try reaching out to 800 yards.
Again, I was able to shoot 1 moa at 600, but couldn't do better than 3 moa at 800.
Until one day I could. Another wall, another breakthrough.
For another few years after that, I couldn't shoot past 800 at all. My groups were all over the place. I couldn't even consistently put 5 shots into a half sheet of plywood (4.6 moa at 1000).
Then one day, three or four years ago, I sat down behind a friends gun, and I shot into about 3 moa at 1000 yards. Then I did it again... and again... sometimes I'd shoot into 2moa, sometimes 3; but I was suddenly better than I had been before.
Now, when I keep my practice up (and it takes a lot of practice), and with the right gun, I can shoot one MOA at 800 yards pretty consistently; but I can only manage 2-3 at 1000 yards.
The problem I have at the moment is that I don't have enough time to practice it, and I haven't had a good enough rifle so that my practice would be useful (you should always have a gun that shoots better than you do, otherwise you don't know if it's you or the gun).
That's why I'm building my 1000 yard gun. I plan on getting to under 1moa at 1000 yards. I don't know how long it's going to take me. Maybe I won't ever be able to break through this wall; but I believe I can, and I intend to do it in style.
Ok, I REALLY want to do this... how much is it actually going to cost?
The first thing you need to understand, is that the cost of the rifle, and the glass, is just the beginning.
You're going to spend FAR more over the life of the rifle on ammunition than you ever do on the rifle. You're going to spend far more on travel. You're going to spend far more on gear. You're going to spend far more on training.
Starting to get the picture?
But how much can ammo possibly cost?
Hmmm, have you been shopping for ammo lately?
Well, first question here is actually, "what are we going to chamber the rifle in", because that will determine the cost of shooting the thing.
Oh and you can't just take into account the cost of ammunition, you also have to account for the cost of barrels.
Yes Virginia, barrels wear out. They are a consumable item, just like ammunition; and different chamberings wear out barrels at different rates.
There are any number of chamberings that will get you out to (and a few beyond) 1000 yards, with sufficient precision. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head, and for an experienced handloader, or benchrest shooter (who are almost always both), any of them could be a worthy selection.
Unfortunately, unless you are into SERIOUS high precision reloading (and if you get at all serious about long range shooting, you will be eventually; but let's assume you're just starting out) you really only have two choices at anything approaching reasonable cost:
308 Winchester, or .300 Winchester magnum (which actually use the same diameter bullets, in different cases).
That may change soon enough; the .300wsm and several of the 6mm and 6.5mm long range cartridges are developing enough of a following that the price and availability of factory ammunition is getting much better; but for now, it's .308win and .300wm.
Also, some may disagree, and choose a .284 caliber, like the 7mm-08, 7mm Remington Magnum, the 7mm wsm, the 7mm saum etc...
The 7mm chamberings have probably the best balance between ballistic efficiency, recoil, and mass, of any common chambering... but for some reason, have comparatively little factory support.
The 7mm magnum is a very popular chambering (second most popular magnum in the U.S. behind .300wm... at least until the .300wsm overtakes it some time in the next few years at the going rate); but for some reason there is a distinct shortage of heavy weight, high ballistic coefficient factory loads available in the chambering (unlike .300wm for example, which has plenty of loads over 180gr available).
I particularly don't understand this, given the availability of really excellent bullets like the Berger 180gr VLD; which is more ballistically efficient (G7BC of .337, G1BC of .659) than any currently existing .308 caliber bullet (as are used in .300wm).
In fact, it may be the most ballistically efficient bullet in any chambering below the .338 (commonly used for 1500 yard+ shooting); and even then, only bullets over .300 gr. can best it.
The 180gr VLD can can be propelled at higher velocity from the 7mm magnum, than the best performing .308 bullets (210gr Bergers) can in the .300wm; with a flatter trajectory (20" less drop at 1000 yards, with the same retained energy), 125 yards more supersonic range, and substantially lower recoil.
The 7mm-08; which is a .308 case necked down to 7mm; outperforms the .308 similarly.
It really is a mystery to me, why there aren't more loads like this available from the factory.
Unfortunately, right now, as with the 6.5s and all the short magnums; I don't believe the .284s/7mms have sufficient factory support to be a viable choice for the beginner, when compared against the .308 or .300wm.
Of the two, .308 win is a fair bit cheaper to shoot (both in ammo, and in barrel life), and has far less recoil (though I personally don't find .300wm to be taxing); but has a couple hundred yards less useful range.
Basically, the .308 is marginal at 1000 yards, has no range beyond it, and won't do 1000 consistently in any kind of wind. The .300wm is solid out to 1250 yards, and can do 1000 consistently in 10 knot winds.
The tradeoff is 50% more recoil, half the barrel life, more expensive ammo and components, and more irritation in reloading (the .300wm is a belted magnum case, which are more difficult to reload).
So, the real question is, how much are you going to be shooting at 1000 yards, vs 600-800 yards, and how much shooting are you going to be doing in windy conditions? Because out to 800 yards, the .308 is just fine, at up to 10 knots wind. It's only that last 200 yards that kills it.
In general, my recommendation for a someone just getting in to long range shooting, is go for the .308 until you are hitting consistently under 2moa at 800 yards. That's when you can really use the capability of the winmag.
I personally followed that same prescription. I shot 600 to 800 yards almost exclusively with .308 (up to 600 yards I use a match grade AR firing 75gr max pressure loads), until I managed to get consistent at 800 yards, and my .308 couldn't give me the results I wanted at longer ranges. That's when I bought a .300 winmag practice rifle, and started to build up my custom 1000 yard rifle.
Shots Per Dollar, or Dollars Per Shot?
Now as to the actual costs of shooting, I'll steal from one of my other posts where I did a detailed analysis of the costs of shooting 10,000 rounds of match grade ammo (reloading, and including barrels).
From a cost perspective the .308win is, hands down, the winner. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range). Even top quality brass is only (lapua, norma, nosler) $0.70-$0.90 a case, with Winchester brass at $0.30 for only slightly less quality (enough so that most shooters use it). Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with another AT LEAST 10 practice loads.
All in all, it's a great value.
I choose to use Berger bullets, Federal or CCI match primers, Hodgdon powder, and top quality match grade brass.
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45. The powder will cost $22 per pound. The barrels will be $600 (including labor to chamber and mount).
So to be conservative, that's:
- $0.70 per case
- $0.45 for the primer and bullet
- 45gr of powder (155 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound for $0.14 of powder
- 10,000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting)
.308win, 185gr Berger "long range boat tail", 10,000 round costs$0.79 a round total cost, for serious match grade shooting... that's a great deal all around. A .300wm loaded to the same standard will run more like $1.10 to $1.20 a round.Total .308win = $7,930
- 2000 cases, $1,400
- 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500
- 65 pounds of powder, $1,430.
- 1 barrel, $600.
Per round .308win = $0.79
Doing the same thing with factory match grade .308 (Federal, Black Hills, Norma, Nosler, or Lapua) will run you about $1.50 to $2 a round in bulk (of course, you'll have 10,000 really nice brass cases to reload at the end of it). In .300wm it's more like $2 to $2.50 a round.
Neither cost of course includes the barrel (or two barrels for the winmag) that you'll shoot through, so tack on an extra $0.06 or $0.12 per round.
Comparing the cost of reloading, to the cost of factory match grade ammo; it is immediately obvious why just about everyone at all serious about long range shooting, ends up being serious about precision reloading as well.
So, that's anywhere from $8000 all the way up to $27,000 in consumables over a 10,000 round shooting period (at most, 5 years of serious shooting).
Are we there yet?
We're not quite ready to get to the cost of the rifle and scope yet, no.
There's a whole other additional cost in 1000 yard shooting gear.
If you're just getting started we can say that you can live without it for now; but you aren't going to get very far along without at least a range finder, and a spotting scope.
If you want to shoot at 1000 yards on anything other than a measured, known distance range, you need to be able to get an ACCURATE distance to your target.
The cheapest way to do that WELL, is with a $400 to $600 rangefinder. Right now, Bushnell (yes, really. They DO occaisonally make good stuff), Nikon, Newcon Optik, and Leica all make rangefinders that will do the job in that price range, at least under good conditions.
I recommend the Leica, which unsurprisingly is the most expensive. The others will get it done, but not as well, or in the same conditions as the Leica will.
Also, you can't practice your shooting, if you can't see what you're hitting, and where you're hitting it. For that, you need a spotting scope; and a cheapy won't do at 1000 yards.
The lowest cost models you're looking at that will actually do the job well enough to get by at 1000 yards; are the 80mm or 100mm extended definition models from Konus, Vortex, or Celestron. They run from $600 to $800.
DO NOT buy a spotting scope smaller than 80mm for this task, and don't buy one that isn't "extended definition" or "extra low dispersion" (if the scope costs over $2k, it's in there. If it uses flourite lenses, and costs more than $600, it's probably in there). They just can't resolve at range well enough to do the job.
Note, that doesn't mean they'll be able to spot a .30 caliber hole at 1000 yards (you're going to need a MUCH more expensive scope for that). But you'll be able to read your 300 yard holes just fine... maybe even your 600 yard holes (or at least the lead smear/black ring). Use some shoot-n-sees for 600 and 800 (presuming you aren't using reactives or gongs. most do) and you'll be golden.
With a reasonable quality scope at 100 yards; you WILL be able to see the inch wide smears of lead you leave on a thick piece of fluorescent orange painted steel, or the big hole you ripped in the similarly painted sheet of plywood, or whether you broke the cheap dinner plate, or knocked down the 16" popper etc... Which you won't be able to see with your naked eye, and may or may not be able to see clearly with your rifle scope (depending on your eyes, and how much you spend on said rifle scope. )
The next step up is a Kowa at about twice the price. Kowa is who most competitive shooters use, as the best compromise between quality, and price.
The next step up from there, is half again as much, up to twice as much; for a Swarovski, Leica, or other high end Swiss/Austrian/German piece.
I'll be going into WAY TOO MUCH detail on this subject in a later post.
Ok, NOW we can get into how much the rifle is going to cost
Again, I'm going to steal a quote from another piece to start this one off.
You should note that almost $8000 baseline cost of consumables before you start thinking about how much the rifle is going to cost.
Are you prepared to spend that much and more, just on shooting this rifle? If not, stop now; because no matter how much or how little the rifle costs, there's no point if you can't pay for the consumables.
Ok, got that firmly fixed in your mind?
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1400 and $1200 respectively; and go up into the $5000 and $4000 range.
That's between $2600 and say $9000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel) for anything from the top end of factory offerings and bottom end of the "good glass"; all the way up to the best of the best custom work.
The most common advice you'll hear experienced gunnies (but NOT experienced long range shooters) give to the less experienced goes something like this:
"You don't need to spend a lot of money to shoot well. Most rifles will shoot better than their owners. Buy something decent, but low priced. Don't buy too much rifle, or too much scope. Save the money you would have spent on extra ammo to practice with".
Often it's followed by something like "don't waste your money on all that. You'll do just fine with a factory Remington, and a Leupold. It'll shoot better than you do."
Well, first, let's leave aside the fact that these days a factory Remington and a Leupold can run you nearly as much as low end custom rifle with a Night Force on it, and probably won't shoot nearly as well...
For hunters, and casual target shooters (and if this is your first long range gun, you don't know if this is going to just be a casual thing for you or not yet. You might end up not liking it, or not having the time for it) that's great advice.
For serious match shooters, or those who intend to become serious match shooters though... Eh, not so much.
So yeah, don't waste your money buy jumping into a huge purchase before you KNOW you're serious about it. As I said, you may not like it, and you may not have the time for it.
Once you know that you're definitely interested in getting serious though, it's time to spend some money; and this is where I want to point back to that cost of consumables from above.
$2400, or hell even $7k (and for $7k you can get a top of the line custom rifle, with top of the line glass) is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Are you done trying to scare me off?
Ok, yes, I'm done trying to scare you off. Let's talk about where to really get started.
My advice for the person interested in getting into long range shooting, is to borrow a friends long range rifle if you can, and see if you like it.
If you don't, great, you wont be bankrupting yourself unnecessarily for something you don't enjoy or have the time for.
If you DO... well, as Obi Wan almost said "You've taken your first step into a much more expensive world"
To get started with your OWN rifle, my suggestion is buy yourself a either one of the Savage model 12s (there are a LOT of different configurations), or a TC encore.
You can either buy one of the heavy barreled varmint/match/target/benchrest stock versions of the Savage; or buy the cheapest model 12, and replace the stock and barrel with higher end ones.
The top end factory Savages run about $1400 street. The midrange models with reasonable stocks and barrels run about $800 street.
The lowest end models run about $600 street, but their stocks and barrels are iffy. Replacement stocks with aluminum bedding blocks run from $300 to $600. Replacement match grade barrels, run from $400 to $600.
You can also just buy an accurized model 12 action with trigger for about $600 (though you can sometimes find a discount dealer who will sell them to you for $400 or $450), and a separate stock and barrel; again, for anywhere from $700 to $1300.
So, if you're really smart about it, you might be able to build up a top quality Savage for around $1100; and in general the price spread will be $800 to $1600 depending on exactly what features you want and who you're buying from.
You can (and probably should) do the same kind of buildup with the Encore; because the factory .308 and .300wm barrels are OK, but not great.
A factory Encore in .308 will run around $600, to $700, depending on whether you buy blued or stainless, and of course on who is selling it (list is up to $800, but who pays list).
A factory Encore receiver with pistol stock (you normally can't buy it without a stock set of some kind, and even if you do, it's not any cheaper) is about $325, or about $350 with a rifle stock and forend (or $50 to $100 more for stainless). Every once in a while you can get someone to sell either to you for $300 blue or $350 stainless.
A top grade Encore barrel in .308. from a maker like Bullberry (one of the best in the business) will run from $400 to $500 depending on length, and whether it's blued or stainless. A slightly lower end maker might run as low as $300.
If you want a custom stock set to go with it, that will run another $300-$600 from Bullberry; and it will be MUCH nice than factory ($600 gets you something worth giving to your grandkids).
All that's going to run you from as little as $600 to as much as $1600 if you splurge on the more expensive configurations or barrel and stock, for either rifle.
Oh and stick a decent bipod, sling swivels, a GOOD rail, and a limbsaver or decelerator on either (even on a .308. You may change chamberings later, and you'll want the pad... plus the encore can be VERY light, and the stock buttpad is not forgiving).
That'll run you $100 to $300 extra depending on what configuration you bought your rifle, barrel, and stock in (some of them will have a rail, a good pad, and sling swivels installed already).
So let's call it $900 to $1700, with a happy medium somewhere around $1200 or so.
What about that "buy a factory Remington, it'll shoot better than you do" advice?
As it happens, the factory Remington with the closest performance to either of the options I've talked about here (and I don't think it will match either one) is the "700 Target Tactical", which lists out at $2,000, and streets at about $1700.
The "XCR long range tactical", a much lower end model, is $1400 list, and around $1200 street. It has a decent Bell and Carlson stock on it, and a 40x trigger; so it should preform reasonably well... though again, not as well as the Savage or Encore.
With ANY of the Remington factory options, you'd still be stuck with a production Remington Barrel, rather than a Krieger or a Bullberry; although on some of the models, they have decent profiles and crowns, and 5r rifling available.
This isn't to say the Remington barrels are BAD, but they certainly aren't AS GOOD, as Krieger, Lilja, Hart etc...
If it were my money, and I were buying a factory Remington only (no custom shop) with boltons and parts swaps allowed; I'd buy the VLS (about $800 street), and replace the trigger with a Jewell HVR ($240); or an SPS varmint (about $550 street) and replace the trigger with the Jewell and the stock with a Bell and Carlson($300).
Except it it were my money, I wouldn't be buying a Remington at all. Not when I could buy the Savage; or a Howa 1100 or Weatherby Vanguard Sub-moa (same rifle, different furniture and branding); for their current street pricing.
Unless you feel like spending $2500+ with Remingtons custom shop (at which point you get a rifle equal to any $2500+ custom rifle. Those guys really know what they're doing); at any price point you can name, you're going to be able to buy or build a rifle from another vendor, that will outshoot the Remington at that price point.
The same goes for Winchester, or Browning by the way (technically the same company as it happens, operating under two different names - the parent company is FNH out of Belgium. They're even making rifles in the same factory now).
This is not to say there aren't great precision options in the Model 70 and A-Bolt families; they're just much more expensive for what you get than building your own Savage.
Marlin isn't even competing in the precision bolt rifle market... though why would they, considering they are owned by Remington (who is in turn, owned by Cerberus).
The new TC Icon bolt action is interesting, but it's an all new design, and there aren't any accessories, stocks, barrels etc... out there for it yet.
The fundamentals are there however, with a nice adjustable trigger, 60 degree three lug bolt, aluminum bedding block system, and a very decent 5R rifled barrel.
TC is even offering a tactical model they call the "warlord", with a Manners T2A stock, Badger bottom metal and AI magazines, fluted 5R barrel with 1:10 twist offered (so you can shoot bullets over 180gr), a built in 20moa rail (for 1000 yard shooting in .308with most decent scopes); and a 1/2moa at 100 yards guarantee.
There are only two problems with it I can find:
First, the barrel is only 22" long (so you lose a couple hundred fps on hot loads vs. a 26" barrel which I prefer for long range shooting).
Second, the damn thing costs $3,000.
Now, I'm guessing it's going to be just as good as any other $3,000 custom rifle... But for $3k I'm going for full custom.
Alright, what about the glass?
I've done a lot of posts about scopes; and I'm about to do two more, so I won't go into detail here; I'll just make a couple of general suggestions, and give you a price range.
To get started with long range shooting, buy a very decent, but not overly expensive scope, with a maximum power around 14-16x, and a 40mm through 50mm objective.
You can go higher powered, but don't go above around 22x or 25x.
Something like the Bushnell Elite 4200 line ($600-$700), the Burris XTR ($800-$900) , the Nikon Monarch X ($750-$950), the Pentax Lightseeker 30 ($550-$750) the lower end Zeiss Conquest ($800-$1100), the Vortex Viper ($500-$700) etc...
Basically something in the $500-$600 range, up to the $900-$1000 price range, fully multicoated with ED glass; and enough elevation to get you to 1000 in .308 with a 20moa base (an absolute minimum of 30moa total adjustment, with more like 50moa being better. That gets you 450" of elevation above a 300 yard zero at 1000 yards, which is more than enough).
If you go below this price range in a variable scope, in this magnification range; it's not going to do the job. The optical quality just wont be sufficient, and the durability and repeatability of adjustments are likely to be pore.
On the other hand, you don't need to go above this price range to shoot at 1000 yards and under; at least in decent conditions, and bright sunlight.
You might be able to go to a fixed power scope for less, but not much (the excellent Leupold high power fixed target scopes run around $500... and they're a spectacular value for money); and unless you're shooting on a fixed known distance range, I MUCH prefer a variable.
Realistically, in this price range, you pay more and you get more optical quality, features, and durability; almost linearly.
Oh and the classic gunnies advice "just buy a Leupold" ?
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with Leupolds; they're the default choice for a lot of shooters; and I still recommend them if you want a high magnification fixed power scope... But have you SEEN Leupolds pricing over the past few years?
On the higher end, Leupold is charging almost as much as Night Force... About $1500 for their equivalent to the $1600 NF; with lower optical quality and less toughness. In the midrange, I think you're getting $600 worth of scope, when Leupold is charging $900.
Personally, I think Burris is offering the best value for money out there right now, in their higher end models. The XTR line are probably the best balance of features, quality, and price, on the market today, at about $800-$900
At the low end of our price scale, I'm also hearing a lot of really good things about Vortexes Viper line (their low end lines are crap like everyone elses under $300 scopes are), at around $500-$600; but I have no direct experience.
Oh, and I'm not going to go into specifics on rings, mounts, and rails except to say, don't cheap out here. A $30 set of rings on a $20 rail is going to be about as precise and repeatable as you would expect any $50 piece of kit to be (i.e. NOT).
So for whatever+x dollars, will it shoot?
If you're smart about it, for anywhere from $1300, to $2600, rifle and glass; you can get a rig that will shoot 1000 yards all day long.
In general, the more you spend in that price range (presuming you're bargaining well), the more consistent and precise your combination is going to be, and the easier it will be to hit at range; but the value "sweet spot" on the rifle is likely around $1100-$1200, and on the glass around $800.
So let's call it $1900-$2000 for the sweet spot, rifle and glass. For that money, you're getting a great trigger, a great barrel, a decent stock, and a decent tactical scope.
Call it a Savage Model 12 precision action, with a Bell and Carlson stock, a Krieger Barrel, and a Burris XTR tactical. That combo right there would run right at about $1900-$2000 including a bipod, swivels, recoil pad etc....
If you just wanted to maximize value completely, and not have any extras, you could build up a single shot Encore, blued with factory stock, a Bullberry barrel, a Vortex tactical scope, and a Harris bipod; for $1400 all up.
Frankly, that's cheaper than buying a straight up factory hunting rifle and mid grade hunting glass.
The great thing about buying this way is though, even if you find out you don't like, or don't have time for, long range precision shooting; you've still got a great rifle and scope, that are useful for hunting, and general target shooting, and you haven't paid too much extra for the capability you won't use.
This is why I recommend the Savage and the Encore specifically. They are the most easily built up, and upgraded, precision rifles out there.
For a few hundred dollars, you can take any Savage or Encore, and put a SERIOUS match grade barrel in it, without any gunsmithing. Both already come with excellent triggers, that can be tuned for little or no money. Both can be fitted with serious target shooting stocks, again, without any gunsmithing.
And most importantly, for that money, they'll really shoot.
No, barring a miracle "golden sample" you're not going to get under 1moa accuracy at 1000 yards with one (or likely even 800 yards); but yeah, they're going to shoot.
In comparison, the receiver alone for my 1000 yard rifle cost $900, the trigger $300, the stock $700, the bottom metal $300, the barrel $600, and the bits and bobs (rails, sling swivels, bipod etc..) another $200 (all costs including labor). Then the scope and rings are going to cost another $3,500 or so on top of that.
Call it somewhere around $7k total.
Basically, when you buy a Savage or an Encore, you've got something that doesn't cost a lot to break in with; but that can be upgraded later, for a lot less money than other platforms; so you can grow with it as you get better, and demand more out of your equipment.
Will your $1400 Encore and Vortex, or your $1900 Savage and Burris outshoot my $6,000 custom rig?
Not a chance in hell.
But will it outshoot 95% of the rifles out there?
Absolutely... and you may not outshoot my rifle, but you might outshoot me.
"Upgraded" comments to Echo
I didn't particularly do it voluntarily. At this point, it's a forced upgrade for $10, or you lose all your comments from all posts.
Theoretically, there is a way to export and import haloscan comments to another system; but according to basically everyone, it doesn't work.
Apparently, after you fully convert to echo, you can resync all your comments with blogger; and then if you want to use someone elses blogger comment import/export tools, that'll work... But you have to pay the $10 and upgrade first.
I don't like forced upgrades.
I don't begrudge a company trying to make money, and I was a haloscan premium member anyway so the $10 a year isn't an issue...
And I actually really like the features available on the new platform. Some of them could really end up being useful, or improve the user experience etc...
I just hate the new interface for me as a site administrator. I cant find a way to view all my comments for all posts in a single interface, as haloscan had.
I LIKE that feature. It allows me to see comments on older posts very easily, catch spam immediately etc...
Yes, theres the moderation interface, but it's nowhere near as useful to me (though it is certainly better implemented). It doesn't even tell you the title of the post the comment is from (and the title isn't anywhere on the comment box either).
Oh, and this one is killing me. Only comments made on posts after I converted to echo appear in the moderation boc... Ok, I get that, it makes sense....
...but...
They've also disabled my access to the old comment management interface, even for older posts that aren't converted to echo; so there is no way for me to see, edit, or moderate those comments at all. I can read them by going to each individual post, but I cant moderate or edit them.
Also, the Halsocan interface was perfectly usable on my iPhone. Not so much for echo.
Oh and I don't like comments in reverse chronological order, and I prefer my comment post box to be AFTER the existing comment thread(so that people will actually READ other folks comments before posting maybe?); but there is no officially supported way of doing so. You can hack their .css but I shouldn't have to do that to get things the way I want them. I'm the site owner, I should have control.
So, to my readers, would you please test commenting on this post, and then provide feedback for what you like and dislike etc...
Thanks
Theoretically, there is a way to export and import haloscan comments to another system; but according to basically everyone, it doesn't work.
Apparently, after you fully convert to echo, you can resync all your comments with blogger; and then if you want to use someone elses blogger comment import/export tools, that'll work... But you have to pay the $10 and upgrade first.
I don't like forced upgrades.
I don't begrudge a company trying to make money, and I was a haloscan premium member anyway so the $10 a year isn't an issue...
And I actually really like the features available on the new platform. Some of them could really end up being useful, or improve the user experience etc...
I just hate the new interface for me as a site administrator. I cant find a way to view all my comments for all posts in a single interface, as haloscan had.
I LIKE that feature. It allows me to see comments on older posts very easily, catch spam immediately etc...
Yes, theres the moderation interface, but it's nowhere near as useful to me (though it is certainly better implemented). It doesn't even tell you the title of the post the comment is from (and the title isn't anywhere on the comment box either).
Oh, and this one is killing me. Only comments made on posts after I converted to echo appear in the moderation boc... Ok, I get that, it makes sense....
...but...
They've also disabled my access to the old comment management interface, even for older posts that aren't converted to echo; so there is no way for me to see, edit, or moderate those comments at all. I can read them by going to each individual post, but I cant moderate or edit them.
Also, the Halsocan interface was perfectly usable on my iPhone. Not so much for echo.
Oh and I don't like comments in reverse chronological order, and I prefer my comment post box to be AFTER the existing comment thread(so that people will actually READ other folks comments before posting maybe?); but there is no officially supported way of doing so. You can hack their .css but I shouldn't have to do that to get things the way I want them. I'm the site owner, I should have control.
So, to my readers, would you please test commenting on this post, and then provide feedback for what you like and dislike etc...
Thanks
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
We have another new family member
This is Wash, and his coat is brown.
Wash is definitely a Rottweiler Doberman mix, but there may be some German Shepherd, and some Pit in him as well. He's got characteristics from all four, and that's what the shelters vets guessed at.
He's a rescue, and was SEVERELY abused. You can't see from the pics, but there are some scars on his side from what appear to be shotgun pellets; and his paws have been badly hurt at some point.
He's about 8 months old, cut, housebroken, and has all his shots. He's also extremely nervous, from the abuse.
A young guy from one of the local shooting forums had another dog (you can see him in the corner of the picture above), and his girlfriend (after being told not to) decided to bring him home a friend to play with.
Unfortunately, they live in a small townhouse with no real yard; and this boy is a runner and a jumper. Combined with the previous abuse making his behavior a bit odd, and the other dog... he was just miserable.
So, they decided it was better if they find another home for him.
...but... because of his breed mix, they couldn't get anyone to take him. He hits every "no no list" on everybodys leases and homeowners associations (including their own, which is one reason the girlfriend was told not to bring him home).
We really don't need another dog but...
When he couldn't get anyone to take him for a few weeks, it came down to bringing him back to the shelter to be put to sleep or...
Y'all know, I've got a soft spot for the politically incorrect breeds...
Well, Wash is with us now.
He's got a pack, he can run and play, he has a family...
And he's HAPPY.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A Gunnies Christmas List
So, I've been eversoslowly compiling this list of various gunny items I'd love to get from Santa, since last year around this time.
I figured now was as good a time as any to publish it.
Now, this is my "real world" list, not my "I've just won the lottery" or "all gun laws are repealed" lists. This is the stuff that, over time, I intend to acquire and accumulate on my own, without any extraordinary circumstances.
It's not exactly complete... A few weeks ago it was like 13 or 14 items, and I keep adding more as I think about it. But it's a snapshot of my "Oooh I'd really like that" mental space as it is right now.
Also, I'm leaving off all Class III/Title II items for now... That list is about as extensive, and WAY more expensive than this one.
Also I'm leaving gear off except for optics; because that list is even longer (and shockingly, even more expensive) than the Class III list.
So, other than the first half dozen items (which are all related to each other); here is, presented in no particular order, my gun "lust list" as of December 2009:
Feel free to share yours, or ideas for mine, or how mine is entirely crackheadedly wrong etc... in comments.
I figured now was as good a time as any to publish it.
Now, this is my "real world" list, not my "I've just won the lottery" or "all gun laws are repealed" lists. This is the stuff that, over time, I intend to acquire and accumulate on my own, without any extraordinary circumstances.
It's not exactly complete... A few weeks ago it was like 13 or 14 items, and I keep adding more as I think about it. But it's a snapshot of my "Oooh I'd really like that" mental space as it is right now.
Also, I'm leaving off all Class III/Title II items for now... That list is about as extensive, and WAY more expensive than this one.
Also I'm leaving gear off except for optics; because that list is even longer (and shockingly, even more expensive) than the Class III list.
So, other than the first half dozen items (which are all related to each other); here is, presented in no particular order, my gun "lust list" as of December 2009:
- To finish my 1000 yard rifle. Absolutely my first priority for guns right now.
I've got the receiver, now I need a trigger, a barrel in .300wm (threaded for a brake and a can), bottom metal (I'm still trying to decide on that one), a stock, and a bi-pod.
I've decided on most of what I'm getting, but I'm still waffling a bit on some bits. A new blog post about this should be out next week actually. - Glass for the 1000 yard rifle. I'm waffling between spending $1600-$1800 on a Night Force, or finding the $2600-3200 to spend on a Schmidt and Bender (the 5-25x56 PMII I really want lists at $3900, but you can get it for as low as $3200. The slightly lower end 4-16x50 can be had for as low as $2600).
On the one hand a NF will most likely do everything I need it to do, and will be $800-$1400 less than the S&B. On the other hand... you just have to look through an S&B to believe it.
Yes, the S&B is as much as $1400 more (presuming the dollar doesn't fall any worse... and it probably will); but when you look through it, you can see where that extra money went.
I may end up splitting the difference, with something like the Premier Reticles 5-25x56 at around $2700, or a USO SN-3 5-25x58 at about the same price.
Again, a new blog post will be out about this next week. - To finish my mountain rifle, including glass
And yet again, a post on that will also be coming next week. - Once the 1000 yard, and mountain guns are completed, I want to build clones of them in .300wsm, and .308.
Then I want to put different, good glass on each of them, to test the various good glass out there at long ranges and under various recoils etc...
Ok, yes, this one is a bit pie in the sky... and god knows it will cost a mint... but eventually I WILL do it. - An 80mm or 100mm extended definition spotting scope from a decent manufacturer
Celestron will do, but if I can scrape the budget, I'll be going higher end. - A 1200 or 1500 yard capable (honest range) laser range finder. Probably the Leica, but there are some other decent and capable options now.
- A new buckmark, with a 1-12 threaded heavy barrel, to use with my suppressor.
- A Smith and Wesson k-22, or K-17. One, just because I want one, but two, to train new shooters with.
- A better stock, threaded heavy barrel, and trigger for my 10-22
- A REALLY nice .22LR boltie, with a 1-12 threaded heavy barrel, and a GOOD stock (Kimber, or CZ would work)
- A 4" 1911 in 10mm to go with my 5". I don't need a full on custom for this, a Dan Wesson would do nicely.
- If someone is crazy enough to make one, a 3" 10mm to go with the 4" would be lovely... Maybe make the slide with tungsten inserts or something.
I'm sure it can be done, given that Glock builds the G29 (though it is a 3.75" barrel, the gun is about officers model size); but no-one is mad enough to build one at the moment.
Unfortunately, I don't LIKE the g29, and I'd really like a baby 1911 in 10mm. - A fully built up hi-power (maybe a Loughridge, a Novak, or another Yost).
I want mine finished in black-t, in 9mm, with a beavertail and skeleton hammer, night sights (fixed are fine), ultra slim grips, beveled magwell (don't need a big flare, just internal smoothing), a barsto barrel, all the edges and bits polished and chamfered, and a REALLY nice trigger.
Something like the C&S pathfinder, or one of Novaks beavertail customs would work just fine. - A pair of new tactical 12 gauges, one pump, one semi.
I haven't really decided on what I want there... except that I probably want the Knoxx stock (now made by Blackhawk) so they'll probably end up being Remingtons.
That said, the current Benellis and Berettas are really something... And personally, I've always been a fan of the speedfeed Winchesters (the 12, 1200, and 1300, and still made as the FN police)... It's too bad they kinda ruined it with the revisions of the SXP. - A pair of S&W 386's, a 3"-4" and one a 5-6"... though I don't think they ever made the 386 in a barrel longer than 4".
I was an idiot for selling mine 5 years ago, and I want to replace it, and give it a brother. - A pair of S&W 610s, one 4" one 6"... yeah I know, good luck on that one.
Maybe I'll stumble across one, one of these days. Or maybe S&W will fulfill my dreams and make them in 3" and 5" for a single production run... or miracle of miracles, do them as 310s in scandium.
I doubt it, but a man can dream. - A pair of S&W model 25s or 625s in .45 colt: One in 3-4" and one in 5-6".
Or even better, both as 325s (which they don't make in .45 colt). Unfortunately, the 25 and 625 in .45colt are limited production runs once every few years. - A pair of 325s in 45acp, one in 3" one in 5", to go with my 5" 625
- A pair of double action revolvers in .454, one in 2-3" and one in 5-6".
Yes I know that's wasting the potential energy of the chambering, since even an 8" barrel doesn't give maximum velocity; I just don't like the handling characteristics of revolvers with barrels longer than 6".
I'm pretty much limited to the Super Redhawk on this one, since the Raging Bull has an irritating tendency to shoot itself rattly within a few thousand rounds (sometimes just a few hundred); and yes, I plan on shooting it that much.
I have a full case of .45 colt, and a full case of heavy .454s waiting for me to get another one. Again, I was stupid and sold mine (a Super Redhawk) about 5 years back. - A double action revolver OTHER THAN THE X FRAME, in .460xvr.
Yes I know no-one is making one yet. Maybe I can get it done custom, but the damn cartridges are so long I don't know if any other frame will handle it... I just don't like the feel of the X-Frame. - A short (call it 18" barrel), large loop, stainless, lever gun in .460 xvr.
Again I know no-one is making one right now... and that one I DON'T understand, because it would be a perfect round for a lever gun; and the pressures are no higher than the other thumpenblitzenboomers they are chambering some levers in.
I think it's nearly ideal. All the energy of a lightly loaded 7mm magnum, in a lightweight, relatively short range, smasher of a load; and all in a handy lever guns... Oh and able to share ammo with a sidearm? Yes please. - A short, large loop, stainless lever gun in .45-70.
I want a .45-70 anyway, and I want a handy, stainless, large loop lever gun in a big hitter short range chambering.
Importantly, unlike the .460, it's actually available now (the Marlin stainless guide gun, or the 1895sbl); and with some of the modern loads available in .45-70, the performance is far more than acceptable. - A high precision .50bmg bolt gun.
Yes I know the big 40s (.416 barret, .408 CheyTac etc...) are better, I just want a .50.
I had one once, for a while, but had to get rid of it. I want another one. - A stainless Encore, with barrels in .223, 6.8spc, .308, .300 whisper, .300wsm, .300wm, .460xvr (which covers .45 colt and .454), and .45-70.
That's my load development, and all purpose backup gun. - AR uppers in 9mm, 10mm, .45acp, 6.8spc, .300 whisper, and either .458 socom, or .50 beowulf (I haven't decided yet).
What can I say, I like my "barbie for men" guns.
Feel free to share yours, or ideas for mine, or how mine is entirely crackheadedly wrong etc... in comments.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Just Watched James Hansen Lie his ASS off on Letterman
That was about 10 minutes of unadulterated bullshit:
And of course, it doesnt matter that the primary source for all of this crap is a proven fraud, because it doesn't change the science at all...
... Yeah...
... Right...
And of course, it doesnt matter that the primary source for all of this crap is a proven fraud, because it doesn't change the science at all...
... Yeah...
... Right...
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Why we call it "security theater"
Several sites today or yesterday reported that confidential portions of the TSA's security and screening procedures have inadvertently been leaked online; because the electronic copies of the documents released in a FOIA request were redacted using a method that could be disabled and removed (leaving the now unredacted text readable) by the recipient of the file.
Cryptome.org has a mirror of the leaked documents here:
http://cryptome.org/tsa-screening.zip
And an explanation of what they did wrong (seriously, it's headslappingly stupid):
http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2009/12/tsa-makes-another-stupid-move.html
And here is a direct link to the identification guide for federal agents who are allowed to bypass security procedures, or carry prohibited items into secure areas (warning, PDF link):
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/ht_tsa_screening_2_091208.pdf#page=58
Just as a teaser, here's an excerpt from the Wired.com article linked above:
I have personal experience in this arena.
Now, I've mentioned this before, but I haven't gone into great detail. I think maybe this would be a good time to go a little bit deeper (without violating my NDAs of course).
I'm going to talk about three incidents, that illustrate what we're talking about when we say "security theater", and that the TSA is not only not making us MORE secure; they are almost certainly making us LESS secure.
Seriously guys, if you believe that the TSA does anything to actually help prevent terrorist attacks... Man you're living in a dream world.
... though honestly, I doubt many of my readers are under that illusion.
Look up the bomb screening procedures some time and you'll... I don't know... scream at the idiocy of it maybe?
Ok, so, those three incidents... As I said, I'm still under NDA and don't want to be sued, so I'm going to be very slightly vague, to protect both the guilty parties, and my own ass.
Up until four years ago (I changed jobs to something more stable when I got married), I was a security consultant and contractor; working in physical, electronic, and information security.
One contract I had a few years back (post 9/11) was to test updated security processes and procedures at a major northeastern airport (I'm still under NDA and don't want to be sued).
They had just installed a massive (and expensive) new identity verification and access control system for their staff, retrained everyone etc... and they wanted an audit to see how they were doing.
The first thing we did was run background checks on everyone who wasn't a TSA employee (they didn't allow us to run checks on TSA people). There were about a dozen undisclosed felons working there, some of them violent.
Then we penetration tested the systems, physically and from the network; and ran some social engineering ops against the facility.
You don't even want to know how easy the system was to penetrate electronically; and because of certain union, city, and state rules and practices, there was a very limited set of things we could do to fix it.
The social engineering efforts were pretty much universally successful as well.
The physical audit was even worse. I'm a 6'2" white guy. I walked around "secured" spaces of a major airport for several hours, using the photo ID badge of a small black woman with a muslimish name (I have a sick sense of humor, what can I say). I wasn't challenged or questioned once.
The final test was to see if we could get contraband into secured areas.
The first thing we were easily able to do was bypass all screening processes. Although the TSA is supposed to screen staff and flight crew... let's just say they are extremely lax in doing so.
Staff may access secured areas on the flight side of a terminal dozens of times a day, going back and forth. The TSA doesn't do much checking there, trusting that staff are staff, and have gone through all the required checks etc...
Staff IDs (which included access control) were pathetically easy to obtain, steal, copy, or to manufacture outright if you had the right equipment and software; all of which is easily commercially available.
The ID system included aircrew identification for the major airlines hubbed there, to "expedite screening procedures". Getting aircrew ID was pathetically easy, and again, screening for aircrew was essentially non-existent.
The ID system also included IDs for law enforcement and security staff stationed in the airport. Same story.
And again, with all of this, union, city, state, and federal work rules prevented us from doing anything REAL or USEFUL to change things.
We had 8 guys using obviously non matching IDs for hours a day, for two days. Not one of them was challenged, ever; even on "inspection" of their ids at checkpoints.
To my knowledge, the only people fired or disciplined were the felons.
This next bit comes from before 9/11, but I happen to know the procedures haven't materially changed.
Several years before that, my company was hired to run an independent audit of screening procedures for the civilian security staff at a different, major northeastern airport.
As part of this test, we were co-operating with teh FAA and local law enforcement.
We placed 21 simulated explosive devices or firearms into our carryon baggage, and ran unannounced tests of the screening system.
Now, there is a widely known (in the security community) problem with the way screeners are trained and tested; in that the screener testing is, by federal work rules, standardized.
For example, screeners are trained to identify 7 bomb like objects in baggage, based on how they appear on xray. If an object is clearly bomb like, but doesn't match one of the 7 testing objects, they actually get marked down on the test for identifying it as a potential bomb.
There are a larger number of simulated weapon type objects, and the FBI and TSA periodically add more of them; but the manuals and spcifications are freely available in government documents, because all federal job performance testing standards must be published.
These rules are to ensure "objective" standards are used, to avoid "discrimination".
In our tests, we made our simulated weapons and explosives devices look just like what they were intended to simulate, but NOT like the objects screeners were trained and tested on.
All but one of them passed through security.
Do you know what happened?
The union protested and had the results quashed, because an unannounced test was against the rules, and because the objects we tested with did not match the 7 objects in the official training materials.
Final example.
In 2004, I was traveling for business, from Phoenix to Boston, then to NYC, from NYC to SFO, and then back to Phoenix.
Four flights. Four passes through security.
I carry a very heavily laden laptop bag, with a lot of different tech junk in it, and various TSA safe tools.
When I am working on a day to day basis for myself (and not my current employer), I also have a KelTec P3AT, and a spare mag in there. Concealed, but not exactly deeply hidden.
When I left for my trip, I thought I had removed my KelTec from my laptop bag.
On my trip, my laptop bag was subject to hand search three of my four flights. After all, there is a bunch of stuff that would hit on the screeners equipment as potential issues. I wasn't hand searched every time I went through security, but almost.
They made me turn my laptop on once, and they made me take various stuff out of my bag for closer inspection in all cases.
When I got back to PHX, I was looking for the KelTec to put back into my bag.
I couldn't find it... and I got a sinking feeling.
YEP, it had been in my laptop bag the entire damn trip.
Four trips through security, three hand searches... All with a loaded firearm, and spare mag; and not detected once (including by me actually; rather firmly illustrating that complacency with firearms breeds trouble).
As I've said, there's a reason why actual security professionals call what we do at our airports "security theater".
Cryptome.org has a mirror of the leaked documents here:
http://cryptome.org/tsa-screening.zip
And an explanation of what they did wrong (seriously, it's headslappingly stupid):
http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2009/12/tsa-makes-another-stupid-move.html
And here is a direct link to the identification guide for federal agents who are allowed to bypass security procedures, or carry prohibited items into secure areas (warning, PDF link):
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/ht_tsa_screening_2_091208.pdf#page=58
Just as a teaser, here's an excerpt from the Wired.com article linked above:
The manual was posted as a redacted .pdf document, with sensitive sections blacked out. But the government apparently hasn’t learned from past redaction flubs and merely overlaid black rectangles on the sensitive text in the .pdf, instead of cutting the text itself. Anyone can uncover the hidden text by simply copying and pasting the blacked out portions into another document.Let me just say, I'm in no way shocked, surprised... even mildly bemused by either the fact that they didn't properly redact the document, or that the un-redacted portions show just how pathetically inadequate and useless our transportation security procedures are.
One of the redacted sections, for example, indicates that an armed law enforcement officer in or out of uniform may pass beyond the checkpoint without screening after providing a U.S. government-issued photo ID and “Notice of LEO Flying Armed Document.”
Some commercial airline pilots receive training by the U.S. Marshals Service and are allowed to carry TSA-issued firearms on planes. They can pass through without screening only after presenting “bonafide credentials and aircraft operator photo ID,” the document says.
Foreign dignitaries equivalent to cabinet rank and above, accompanying a spouse, their children under the age of 12, and a State Department escort are exempt from screening.
There are also references to a CIA program called WOMAP, the Worldwide Operational Meet and Assist Program. As part of WOMAP, foreign dignitaries and their escorts — authorized CIA representatives — are exempt from screening, provided they’re approved in advance by TSA’s Office of Intelligence.
Passengers carrying passports from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen or Algeria are to be designated for selective screening.
Although only a few portions of the document were redacted, the manual contains other tidbits that weren’t redacted, such as a thorough description of diplomatic pouches that are exempt from screening.
A. Diplomatic pouches are exempt from any form of screening. A diplomatic pouch can be a bag, pouch, or container holding diplomatic correspondence, documents, or articles. Although an individual transporting a diplomatic pouch may have diplomatic immunity, that individual and his or her nondiplomatic accessible property and checked baggage must undergo screening and all alarms must be resolved.
B. The diplomatic pouch must have visible external markings in English that state “Diplomatic Pouch” or “Diplomatic Bag”. The pouch must bear an official seal of the sending government or international organization. For example, a seal could be a lead seal attached to a tie that closes the pouch, a printed seal on the fabric of the pouch, or an ink seal impressed on a detachable tag. The pouch must be addressed to an office of the government or international organization whose seal the pouch bears. For unaccompanied pouches tendered as checked baggage, a detachable certificate will be affixed to the outside of the pouch that describes the pouch and certifies the contents as diplomatic materials. The Department of State (DOS) encourages diplomatic couriers to notify the aircraft operator that they are carrying a diplomatic pouch.
C. When a diplomatic pouch is presented by a diplomatic courier to TSA at a screening checkpoint or screening location, the STSO must check that the diplomatic courier is carrying an official or diplomatic passport and a courier document or letter on their person for identification. A courier letter must be on appropriate letterhead stationary and must bear a seal of the sending state, embassy, consulate, or international organization. The courier letter must be signed by the relevant Ambassador or Chief of Mission serving in the United States. The courier document must clearly identify the bearer and his or her status as a diplomatic courier and must contain information sufficient to identify the pouch(es), to include the number of pouches being escorted.
I have personal experience in this arena.
Now, I've mentioned this before, but I haven't gone into great detail. I think maybe this would be a good time to go a little bit deeper (without violating my NDAs of course).
I'm going to talk about three incidents, that illustrate what we're talking about when we say "security theater", and that the TSA is not only not making us MORE secure; they are almost certainly making us LESS secure.
Seriously guys, if you believe that the TSA does anything to actually help prevent terrorist attacks... Man you're living in a dream world.
... though honestly, I doubt many of my readers are under that illusion.
Look up the bomb screening procedures some time and you'll... I don't know... scream at the idiocy of it maybe?
Ok, so, those three incidents... As I said, I'm still under NDA and don't want to be sued, so I'm going to be very slightly vague, to protect both the guilty parties, and my own ass.
Up until four years ago (I changed jobs to something more stable when I got married), I was a security consultant and contractor; working in physical, electronic, and information security.
One contract I had a few years back (post 9/11) was to test updated security processes and procedures at a major northeastern airport (I'm still under NDA and don't want to be sued).
They had just installed a massive (and expensive) new identity verification and access control system for their staff, retrained everyone etc... and they wanted an audit to see how they were doing.
The first thing we did was run background checks on everyone who wasn't a TSA employee (they didn't allow us to run checks on TSA people). There were about a dozen undisclosed felons working there, some of them violent.
Then we penetration tested the systems, physically and from the network; and ran some social engineering ops against the facility.
You don't even want to know how easy the system was to penetrate electronically; and because of certain union, city, and state rules and practices, there was a very limited set of things we could do to fix it.
The social engineering efforts were pretty much universally successful as well.
The physical audit was even worse. I'm a 6'2" white guy. I walked around "secured" spaces of a major airport for several hours, using the photo ID badge of a small black woman with a muslimish name (I have a sick sense of humor, what can I say). I wasn't challenged or questioned once.
The final test was to see if we could get contraband into secured areas.
The first thing we were easily able to do was bypass all screening processes. Although the TSA is supposed to screen staff and flight crew... let's just say they are extremely lax in doing so.
Staff may access secured areas on the flight side of a terminal dozens of times a day, going back and forth. The TSA doesn't do much checking there, trusting that staff are staff, and have gone through all the required checks etc...
Staff IDs (which included access control) were pathetically easy to obtain, steal, copy, or to manufacture outright if you had the right equipment and software; all of which is easily commercially available.
The ID system included aircrew identification for the major airlines hubbed there, to "expedite screening procedures". Getting aircrew ID was pathetically easy, and again, screening for aircrew was essentially non-existent.
The ID system also included IDs for law enforcement and security staff stationed in the airport. Same story.
And again, with all of this, union, city, state, and federal work rules prevented us from doing anything REAL or USEFUL to change things.
We had 8 guys using obviously non matching IDs for hours a day, for two days. Not one of them was challenged, ever; even on "inspection" of their ids at checkpoints.
To my knowledge, the only people fired or disciplined were the felons.
This next bit comes from before 9/11, but I happen to know the procedures haven't materially changed.
Several years before that, my company was hired to run an independent audit of screening procedures for the civilian security staff at a different, major northeastern airport.
As part of this test, we were co-operating with teh FAA and local law enforcement.
We placed 21 simulated explosive devices or firearms into our carryon baggage, and ran unannounced tests of the screening system.
Now, there is a widely known (in the security community) problem with the way screeners are trained and tested; in that the screener testing is, by federal work rules, standardized.
For example, screeners are trained to identify 7 bomb like objects in baggage, based on how they appear on xray. If an object is clearly bomb like, but doesn't match one of the 7 testing objects, they actually get marked down on the test for identifying it as a potential bomb.
There are a larger number of simulated weapon type objects, and the FBI and TSA periodically add more of them; but the manuals and spcifications are freely available in government documents, because all federal job performance testing standards must be published.
These rules are to ensure "objective" standards are used, to avoid "discrimination".
In our tests, we made our simulated weapons and explosives devices look just like what they were intended to simulate, but NOT like the objects screeners were trained and tested on.
All but one of them passed through security.
Do you know what happened?
The union protested and had the results quashed, because an unannounced test was against the rules, and because the objects we tested with did not match the 7 objects in the official training materials.
Final example.
In 2004, I was traveling for business, from Phoenix to Boston, then to NYC, from NYC to SFO, and then back to Phoenix.
Four flights. Four passes through security.
I carry a very heavily laden laptop bag, with a lot of different tech junk in it, and various TSA safe tools.
When I am working on a day to day basis for myself (and not my current employer), I also have a KelTec P3AT, and a spare mag in there. Concealed, but not exactly deeply hidden.
When I left for my trip, I thought I had removed my KelTec from my laptop bag.
On my trip, my laptop bag was subject to hand search three of my four flights. After all, there is a bunch of stuff that would hit on the screeners equipment as potential issues. I wasn't hand searched every time I went through security, but almost.
They made me turn my laptop on once, and they made me take various stuff out of my bag for closer inspection in all cases.
When I got back to PHX, I was looking for the KelTec to put back into my bag.
I couldn't find it... and I got a sinking feeling.
YEP, it had been in my laptop bag the entire damn trip.
Four trips through security, three hand searches... All with a loaded firearm, and spare mag; and not detected once (including by me actually; rather firmly illustrating that complacency with firearms breeds trouble).
As I've said, there's a reason why actual security professionals call what we do at our airports "security theater".
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Monday, December 07, 2009
Culinary Jihad
LabRat (of the Atomic Nerds), has kicked over a nice fiery red anthill, talking about the various religious food sects out there across our fine nation.
Now I can't exactly miss this one, especially since I have had so many of these dishes in my recipes, and had several of these food feuds hosted here (or in other blogs comments) over the past few years. I started off making a comment on the original post, but it got so long I decided to post the whole thing here and just link back to it.
So, specifically, they chose to address chili, hot dogs, corn bread, biscuits, barbecue, and burgers.
A fair list indeed. It hits most of the high points, and leaves out the limited regionalisms (like steak and cheese/cheesesteak - two VERY different things - lobster rolls, crab cakes, shrimp/crab/crawfish boils, hams, chowder, grits etc...).
Significantly, they mentioned pizza in passing but did not dedicate a section to it; something we will need to rectify here.
It's important to note, this is coming from a New Englander transplanted into Arizona, who has lived and traveled a lot in all the major religious regions we're discussing. So I've at least got a fair bit of food experience in each of them as a frame of reference.
1. Chili: If it's got beans in it, it isn't chili, it's chili bean stew. Chili has meat, chilis, flavorful liquid, and seasonings in it. Anything else is not chili.
Chili bean stew is as good as chili (or rather it CAN be, unless beans are being used in the stew as a cheap way to replace meat, rather than an addition of starch and texture), it's just different. Sometimes you want beans, sometimes you don't. Also sometimes it's better as a topping or side dish with beans, and sometimes without.
Tomatoes (or tomato paste or puree) are acceptable to add flavor to the liquid, so long as they are not a primary flavoring. They can only be a seasoning or an accent. You are making chili, not tomato sauce. If you want a sweeter, more vegetal chili, add sweet red pepper chili puree, not tomato puree.
The same goes for other non chili peppers; but only if you are making chili for low spice tolerant people. Otherwise use mild sweet chilis.
Garlic is essential in chili, but it should be finely crushed and minced, and then sauteed in the fat before the liquid is added, so as to disappear into the chili.
Onions should not be used as a primary ingredient in chili. Onions MAY be added, but only if they are treated the same way as the garlic; used as a seasoning. There should not be chunks of onion in the chili itself.
If you want onions in your chili, they should be chopped raw, served on the top of the bowl, with the cheese.
Real chili has no vegetables in it other than the chili peppers (tomatoes are a fruit).
"Skyline chili"/"Cincinnati chili" isn't chili. If it doesn't have chili peppers and meat as its primary flavor components, it isn't chili. "Cincinati chili" is more of a goulash than it is a chili.
That means "meatless chili" also, is not chili. It's spicy vegetable stew.
There are two primary acceptable variants of chili: Red (rojo or colorado) and green (verde).
Acceptable primary meats include beef, pork, buffalo, elk, and venison. Secondary meats include variants of the primaries, like sausages, beef jerky (yes, beef jerky chili is quite good if you use good jerky), salt pork (great for flavoring a chili verde sauce).
It is also acceptable to make a non-meat chili sauce using red or green chilis, and call it "chili rojo" or "chili verde" and serve it OVER meat; however in general the fat in such a sauce should be meat fat, like rendered salt pork or bacon etc...
Chicken, turkey, or other poultry are not acceptable primary meats in chili. A "turkey chili" isn't; it's a turkey chili verde stew, or "turkey with chili verde" etc...
If you make chili with a fish as the primary ingredient, that's not chili, it's spicy fish stew (which can be VERY good, especially Portuguese style).
Chili should be served either in a bowl with optional cheese, onions, and a crunchy accent (tortilla strips or chips, corn chips, saltines, or oyster crackers are all acceptable); or optionally, as a topping on... anything really. I've had spicy habanero pork chili on top of vanila ice cream and it was delicious.
2. Hot Dogs: Hot dogs are BEST, when all beef with a natural casing. Kayem, Pearl Kountry Klub, the large deli type hebrew national (not the crappy supermarket ones), vienna beef (again, the large deli style not the crappy supermarket ones), or your local polish deli all produce acceptable examples.
Other types of hot dogs are acceptable, but generally not as good. Polish sausages, red hots, and white hots are also good, and are prepared and served similarly.
Turkey, chicken, or other poultry are not to be included in hot dogs. If a hot dog is made of pork, it's a pork sausage.
Veggie dogs, are NOT hot dogs. Neither are "Salmon dogs" for you Seattleites, or "fish dogs" (usually grouper I think) for you Floridians. Let's not even get into the "SPAM dog", you Hawaiians seem to love.
If it's fish in a hotdog bun, it's a fish roll. If it's lobster in a hot dog bun, it's a lobster roll. Lobster rolls are AWESOME (if done right anyway), but they are not hot dogs. Same thing for shrimp, and crab.
As far as I'm concerned, if you call it a hot dog, an observant Jew should be able to eat it (presuming acceptable topping selection).
Hot dogs are best served with mustard, preferably on a doublecut bun (crust on the top and bottom, fresh white bread on the sides, slit down the middle of the top), that has been grilled on both sides with a little butter (much like a grilled cheese sandwich).
If you can't find doublecut buns, I'm so sorry for you, because that butter grilled crunch on the sides is SO GODDAMNED GOOD. However they are uncommon outside of the northeast, so a conventional "hot dog bun" is acceptable; and can be lightly steamed, grilled, or toasted.
You can go without heating the bun at all, but 'dogs are so much better with a heated bun, why would you not?
An acceptable substitute for doublecut buns if you want to get that butter grilled flavor, and distinctive light crunch; is to buy either unsliced, or very thickly sliced white bread (as in over an inch thick), spread a pat of softened butter on both sides, then grill it to golden brown deliciousness on both sides. Slice it down the middle of the edge crust, about 2/3 of the way down, squirt a little mustard in the bottom, then insert and top your dog as normal.
Acceptable cooking methods for hot dogs are pan/flattop grilling (preferably with a little butter), deep frying, fire grilling (or grilling under a very hot broiler, if you are VERY CAREFUL), and steaming.
Boiling and microwaving are for kids, college students, the desperate, and ballpark vendors. If you can't take the extra 90 seconds to get a pan out and heat it up on a burner; or are too lazy to take the 3 minutes standing over the stove to pan grill, you don't deserve to eat.
Yes, I know, for a Massachusetts native this is heresy, because the most popular way for hot dog vendors in the state to make their dogs is boiling. Those vendors are wrong. Boiling ruins hot dogs. If you're going to cook them wet, they should be steamed, not boiled (steamed dogs are just fine. For some dog types, it's the best way to cook them since it softens the natural casing without killing that distinctive snap).
Most New Yorkers THINK they are eating boiled dogs with their "dirty water dogs" but technically, NYC dirty water dogs are steamed, then sit in hot water for hot storage during the day.
Optional toppings include cheese, chili (no beans), bacon (best when wrapped around the dog during cooking), onions (raw or grilled), chopped tomatos, pickle relish, hot or sweet peppers (or both), a crunchy pickle, and a dryish slaw.
Note, ketchup is NOT on that list. Ketchup ruins hot dogs. Mayonaise or sour cream are also not on that list; unless you are in the southwest, and get a Sonora dog.
Some pacific northwesters like cream cheese on their hot dogs... and I admit, a hot dog with cream cheese and bacon is a fattily delicious treat... but you cant taste the hot dog at all. It's overwhelmed by the cream cheese (at least if the cream cheese is any good, and why would you ruin the thing by using bad cream cheese?).
If a side is desired, hot dogs should be served with fries, chips, slaw, mac'n'cheese, or baked/cowboy beans.
3. Corn Bread: Honestly, I'm of two minds on this one.
On the one side, I agree that proper corn bread should not be sweet; excepting the very slight natural sweetness of cornmeal, and the small amount of sugar, molasses, honey, or sorghum, that are often added to recipes to give their crust extra crunchiness, and to feed the yeast in a yeast leavened recipe.
Also, proper cornbread should be made with either bacon, or pork sausage drippings as its fat component; with lard or salted butter as possible substitutes or fat extenders if you don't have enough drippings. Oh and it should be very slightly salty.
However, I absolutely LOVE corn cake, and corn muffins, which ARE sweetened (again, with sugar, molasses, honey, or sorghum), are a little bit softer in texture; and should use butter as their primary fat. Oh and it should still be slightly salty, in addition to being sweet.
Either should still have a discernible cornmeal crunch to them, from slightly coarser cornmeal. If there isn't any grit to it at all, you've used too much flour and not enough meal; or too much liquid cooked for too long.
Remember, you're making cornbread, not polenta.
Sometimes I want corn bread, sometimes I want corn cake or muffins. It depends on what I'm eating it with, and what my mood is.
If you want sweet cornbread, sweeten it afterward with honey or molasses, or apple butter; or just make corn cake or corn muffins to begin with.
Oh and if you tell someone that you are serving them cornbread, don't serve them corncake. That's just wrong.
4. Biscuits: Biscuits are NOT sweet; again, excepting the very slight natural sweetness that comes with a yeast or sourdough leavened recipe.
If you're making biscuits sweet, you're making shortcake, or a cobbler crust. Shortcake is lovely, and delicious, but it aint biscuits.
As with corn bread, biscuits should be made with bacon or sausage drippings, butter, or lard; and should be rich, tender, flaky, creamy from fat but not greasy, and slightly salty.
Like cornbread, biscuits can be either chemically leavened (baking soda/powder), or naturally leavened (yeast, or sourdough). The three styles of biscuit are very distinct from each other, but all are biscuits, and all are very good.
Soda leavened biscuits are generally lighter, with a finer texture, and flakier (and they take a LOT less time then the other methods). Sourdough biscuits are a little heavier, with a more coarse texture, and are chewier. Yeast leavened biscuits fall somewhere in the middle.
All should be very tender, which you achieve by balancing your fat and gluten content; and by not overworking the dough.
Biscuits can be cut, thrown, pulled, or dropped; though to my mind only sourdough biscuits should be pulled.
5. Barbecue: Barbecue... so much has been written about this subject... the holy wars between the regions alone can (and have) filled books.
I'm going to quote what I've written on the topic before in "Barbecue Bellwhethers" (another post inspired by the Atomic Nerds in fact):
First things first, what exactly is barbecue?
Technically, barbecue is any meat roasted over a fire using either direct or indirect heat and smoke, usually outdoors.
There are any number of styles of barbecue, including Caribbean, Argentine, Peruvian, Korean, Mongolian, Japanese; and in America alone, Santa Maria, Carolina, Memphis, Kansas City, Chicago, and Texas style, as well as plain old American style charcoal grilling (which yes, can technically barbecue by the strict definition).
Each style has its own traditional meats, seasonings, sauces (or lack thereof) and exact details of cooking methods; and each is good in its own way.
In America, "real barbecue" , as opposed to grilling, means meat roasted with indirect heat and smoke. The differences then are primarily regional, and involve sauces, seasonings, and choices of meat.
In most of the southeast, BBQ is primarily pulled pork, in vinegar based sauces, often flavored with mustard.
In Memphis, pork ribs are king, with a dry rub. They may or may not be wet mopped with a tomato and vinegar based sauce (which may or may not contain mustard) while they are being smoked. They may, or may not be served with two sauces, one a very sweet molasses or brown sugar and tomato based sauce, the other a thing vinegar, tomato, and mustard sauce.
In the midwest and southwest, BBQ can include pulled pork and pork ribs; but is primarily cuts of beef, including beef brisket, tri tip, rump roast, flank steak, beef ribs, and both beef and pork sausages.
In Chicago, its all ribs, all the time, in a sweet slightly spicy, tomato based sauce with lots of brown sugar; and there may or may not be a rub involved.
In Kansas city it's ribs, tri tip, and brisket, with a similar but even sweeter sauce; and a sweet and only slightly spicy rub.
In Texas, and the southwest, there may or may not be vinegar, tomato, or molasses based sauces involved; but you'll always have at least brisket and sausage.
In California, they have their own native Santa Maria style, which involves smoking above a hot fire, essentially smoking and grilling simultaneously. They use more tender cuts of beef than slow smoking styles, favoring steaks, and tri tip; and the sauce is based on beef stock, and herbs.
If you go to an all round barbecue joint outside of any of the major BBQ regions, you're likely to get some mix of all of the above; though it's rare for any particular place to do both beef and pork ribs, unless they are specifically a rib joint.
If we accept the proposition that proper barbecue involves hot smoked meat; and is not limited to pork (and I do), then we have a first principal to work from, and therefore can answer the question usefully.
The common barbecue dishes out there, that most places outside of an area that specializes in a particular style (i.e. Chicago specializes in ribs, South Carolina in pulled pork) are likely to have, are probably (in order of commonality):
1. Pork ribs
2. Sliced Brisket
3. Pulled pork
4. Sausage
5. Chicken (whole or parts)
6. Chicken (pulled)
7. Chopped or pulled beef (usually brisket or tri-tip)
8. Chopped or sliced pork
9. Beef ribs
10. Sliced tri-tip
Ok, so, as far as I'm concerned, if it's smoked and roasted, to render out fat and allow smoke flavor to penetrate, it's barbecue; even if it's finished with high direct heat on a grill.
If it's cooked in a sauce that may be used for barbecue, that isn't barbecue; unless the meat is smoked first.
If it's braised in flavorful liquids, or grilled, then sauced with barbecue type sauce; that isn't barbecue.
The meat MUST be smoked, the fat and connective tissue must be rendered. You can smoke it AND cook it in some other way in combination; but without actual smoking, and that wood smoke flavor added naturally thereby, it is NOT BARBECUE.
My personal preferences?
I like a dry rub, not too sweet or too spicy, with a long low and slow smoke; and if necessary finished in an oven, in foil, or on a grill, to avoid oversmoking or getting dry.
I like my pork dry rubbed, and wither dry smoked or vinegar wet mopped. It should be served in natural juices only, or at most a very amount of sauce, so I can add as much sauce as I want later. I like both sweet tomato/molasses/brown sugar sauces, and vinegar pepper or vinegar mustard sauces. I like pulled, sliced, or chopped, but prefer pulled.
I like both pork and beef ribs, but prefer pork. I like my ribs dry rubbed, and either vinegar wetmopped, or cooked dry until the end; then glazed with sauce a few minutes before finishing, just to get it hot and maybe add a little caramelization and smoke. I like a sweet and hot sauce, not a vinegar sauce (unless the vinegar sauce is being used as a wetmop during smoking).
I like my brisket and tri-tip dry rubbed and unsauced during cooking, again unless it's a vinegar based wetmop; and then sauced by me on my plate (if at all). Pulled, sliced, or chopped I love all three; but I like sliced the best.
I love sausage and chicken, but I prefer them cry grilled, not smoked; and I like to sauce them myself.
6. Burgers: Burgers SHOULD be a simpler subject than the others, but for some reason is not.
Burgers consist of ground beef, buffalo, bison, yak or venison (including elk, deer, antelope etc...).
That's it.
Some purists insist that a burger can only be beef, but that's kind of short sighted, since it excludes so many other beef-like meats that should be included.
The meat must be red, and come from a four hoofed, even toed, ungulate (bovidae, cervidae, and some caprae like antelope which have red meat).
No other meat is acceptable as a burger. I love seasoned ground pork sandwiches, but they aren't burgers, they're ground pork sandwiches. Same with seasoned ground lamb (hmmmmm... gyros
Mixed meats, or meats mixed with binders such as eggs, breadcrumbs etc... have a name, and it's not burger, it's meat loaf.
Meat loaf is also delicious, but it's not a burger.
There is one notable exception to that rule: mixing in fatty beef or cured pork (in the form of bacon, fatty ham, or salt pork), to add fat into venison, buffalo, bison, or ultra lean beef like tenderloin; so that it will hold together as a burger (they can be so lean that they otherwise fall apart when cooked).
Similarly, chopping up vegetables, onions, peppers, or anything else (again with one exception) and mixing it into a burger makes it a loose beef sausage, or a meatloaf; not a burger.
That one exception, is hot chili peppers. They are allowed, because they are MANLY, and befitting the true spirit of the burger.
As with hot dogs, "veggieburgers", are NOT burgers; nor are turkeyburgers, chickenburgers, or anyother kind of burger. They are simply sandwiches, without the hallowed appellation of burger.
Similarly, even if it's on a "burger bun", anything chopped and mixed with a dressing or sauce, or cut into the shape of a burger; is still NOT a burger. No salmon burger, crab burger, tuna burger etc...
Burgers may ONLY be fried (pan, deep, shallow, or flat top are all acceptable), fire grilled or broiled. There is no other acceptable cooking method... Though if one makes a burger several inches thick, it is acceptable to partially cook it using one of the methods above, then finish it in the oven.
The meat should be a mixture of both lean and fatty bits; neither too tough, nor too tender, but always flavorful. If beef, in general, the best choice of cut is a mixture of chuck and sirloin, in an 80% lean to 20% fat ratio; and chopped just on the fine side of coarse.
Most commercial "hamburger" meat is too finely chopped, to disguise the fact that it is mixed trimmings from many cuts. This makes for a burger with poor texture, that is too dense and heavy; with poor mouthfeel. It can also make for a burger that is tough even when properly cooked, greasy, and even "slimy".
Most frozen patties are even worse. Please, don't use them (unless you have access to the best quality commercial frozen patties, rather than supermarket frozen patties).
Patties may be formed thick or thin, depending on ones preferences. I personally like mine a bit thinner; as while I prefer my stakes medium rare, I prefer my burgers medium or medium well.
For me, it's a texture issue. Rare and medium rare burgers, unless VERY high quality, very lean beef is used; end up having a slightly slimy, raw mouthfeel that I intensely dislike.
To avoid "baseball burgers" or worse "briquette burgers", make your patties like a plastic wheel: A thick outer rim, and a thinner inner hub.
That why as you sear, instead of shrinking away on the outside, and puffing up into a baseball shape in the middle; the middle puffs about as much as the outside shrinks (presuming you use 80/20 anyway) and the patty ends up mostly even.
During cooking, or while being formed, burgers should be seasoned with at least salt and pepper.
The addition of garlic and onion (salt or powder), chili powder, cumin, paprika, hot mustard powder, small amounts of oregano, and a splash of soy or Worcestershire sauce are also acceptable; however at no time should the natural meat flavor be overpowered. These seasoning should only accent and ENHANCE, the natural meat flavor.
It is also acceptable to squirt and/or brush a burger with mustard, hot sauce, steak sauce, Worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, teriyaki sauuce, or barbecue sauce while cooking; to sear the flavor into it (double double, mustard fried... hmmmm); but again, it is critical that such sauces accent and enhance the natural beef flavor, not mask it.
Burgers should be served on a lightly toasted or grilled bun only. If served on any other kind of bread or bread substitute, it is not a burger.
Patty melts, and cheeseburger subs are great, but they aren't burgers. "Lettuce wrap burgers" are most definitely NOT burgers, nor are pitaburgers, or tortilla burgers etc...
I should note, my favorite grilled meat patty sandwich; is a patty melt, on grilled sourdough with bacon, cheese, ketchup, and mustard... but it's a patty melt, not a burger.
Cheese is encouraged, as a great enhancement to natural meat flavor; but not required. Bacon, and crispy sour or garlic pickles are also similarly flavor enhancing, and add an element of contrast in both flavor and texture.
Although I personally think onions, lettuce, and tomatoes on burgers are unnecessary, and detract from the essential meat experience (that's not food, it's what food eats); I can at least tolerate providing them for others.
Acceptable condiments include ketchup (used sparingly please), mustard, steak sauce, hot sauce barbecue sauce, horseradish (again for all of the above, not too much. Don't hide the beef flavor), and pickle or pepper relish.
I have a reservation about ketchup, barbecue sauce etc... Unless a meat is very strongly flavored naturally (like when smoked for example); ketchup, and other tomato based sauces tend to obscure or overwhelm other flavors. Conversely, unless used in excessive amounts, mustard, chili, and vinegar based sauces generally enhance them (unless they are so hot or pungent as to overwhelm other tastes or deaden the taste buds).
Also, never put mayonnaise on a burger (or any other red meat). If you don't want to taste the meat, eat turkey or something; don't waste perfectly good beef by putting mayonnaise on it.
Burgers should be served with chips or french fries, and pickles or slaw (so you have a crunchy starchy bit, and a crunchy sour fresh cold bit).
Bonus Round: Pizza
As with barbecue, I've written extensively on the subject of Pizza, and will quote one of my earlier pieces here:
There are a few different common styles of pizza, including Sicilian, Neapolitan, Greek, pan, and deep dish. There are also some pizza LIKE dishes such as stromboli, and calzone.
Unfortunately, what people from one area of the country call one thing, means something entirely different to people from another area of the country, and another entirely different thing to people from Italy.
For example, in New York city (and places that have accepted New York pizza, or chains that have adopted NY terminology), a sicilian pizza is a square pan style pizza (not a deep dish) with a relatively thick crust, the cheese and toppings laid directly on the crust, and a thin layer of sauce spread over the top; which is served by cutting it into rectangular slices.
That is basically an NYC invention however. In Sicily, pizza is much like traditional Neapolitan style pizza (what Americans generally think of as New York style, with a thin and flexible crust and slightly crispy bottom) only even thinner, and slightly crispier, while still being flexible (it's not Italian style if you can't fold it).
Similarly, what most Americans call calzone, or stromboli, have nothing to do with the traditional dishes they derive their name from.
Calzone is NOT folded pizza, or a pizza sandwich, as is sometimes sold as calzone around america. Calzone is a rolled and baked pastry dish, using a pizza like dough, and meat, cheese, and vegetable fillings without sauce.
To make a calzone, you lay the fillings, along with a dry ricotta cheese, out along the length of the dough, taking up 1/3 the width, then fold the sides over, pinching them together to make a tight seal. Pinch the ends together tightly, and fold over, flattening them against the top of the roll. Finally roll the entire assemblage over so that the smooth side will be baked on top, make some small slits, or punctures in it to let some of the steam out, and brush it with an egg and butter wash.
Stromboli is CLOSE to the folded pizza that some sell under that name, but like calzone, it too is a pastry dish using a pizza like dough. Stromboli however includes sauce inside it. Basically to make a stromboli you sauce the whole crust, then put toppings on one half, and fold over; pinching and rolling the edge tightly to seal. Egg and butter wash as with calzone, but brush both sides, and do not puncture it. A stromboli should inflate as it is cooking, and presuming you made your dough properly, the steam won't explode it.
Importantly, stromboli and calzone dough should contain eggs, and should be brushed with an egg and butter wash to produce a hard, crusty and shiny shell.
I personally like two styles of pizza, pan (not deep dish), and traditional Neapolitan/Sicilian style (NOT what they CALL Sicilan in NYC).
Pan pizza is probably most familiar to you as the STYLE of pizza that Pizza hut is famous for (only when I make it it doesnt suck); however real pan pizza only resembles pizza hut, in the same way that a Lamborghini Gallardo resembles a Hyundai Accent.
Pan pizza is NOT Chicago style deep dish, which isn't actually a pizza at all, but more of a tomato, cheese, and meat pie (not that that's a bad thing).
Let me repeat that. "Chicago deep dish pizza" is not pizza. It is a meat and cheese pie.
Yes, it is a delicious meat and cheese pie, but it aint pizza.
Also, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Papa Johns, and Little Ceasars do not make pizza. They make mediocre bread topped with processed cheeze food and tomato flavored corn syrup.
Pizza has to have a chewy, slightly crispy crust; a sauce with no added sugar or sweeteners in it, and actual garlic, olive oil, and herbs; and cheese that NATURALLY stretches at least 12" while being rich, fatty, and still sharp and flavorful at the same time.
Real pizza does not need marketing.
Pan pizza crust should be a little bit thick, a little bit doughy, and very slightly oily; as the small amount of oil in the crust and the lightly oiled hot pan almost fry the dough of the crust to crispness on the bottom and sides.
In a pan pizza the dough is spread out, and up the sides of a 3/4" or so thick pan. The toppings are spread out bmost of the way to the edge, and it's baked until the edges are brown and crispy. In general, the sauce is slightly sweeter than in authentic Italian style pizzas; though I personally prefer it to be a bit more savory.
Almost always, the cheese is thicker, and usually entirely mozarella, except in the midwest, where they tend to mix it with cheddar.
Neapolitan pizza is VERY thin, with a decent sized crust edge to hold on to; and it should be flexible enough to fold, but lightly crispy with a bit of crunch in the teeth. It should have a savory sauce, tasting of olive oil, oregano, basil, and black pepper.
A proper Neapolitan should be topped with a low moisture whole milk mozzarella cheese (preferably a buffalo mozzarella, but that's very expensive), and something a bit sharper to accent it. I personally like a mix of Mozzarella, parmagianno regiano, peccorino romano, and asiago.
Any thin crust pizza should be cooked either on a pizza stone/brick surface, or a very evenly heated and very thick metal surface with a pizza grate under the crust; so that it heats evenly and consistently without too much temperature drop, while allowing moisture to escape.
Laying a thin crust on a bare metal surface will cause that surface to drop a lot of heat very quickly. It may scorch the crust, and without a doubt crust will express oil and steam. It will cook through, but it will be bready, and not crispy on the bottom (like a typical midwestern chain pizza place).
To avoid sticking and tearing the very thin dough, dust your prep surface, and your pizza peel (or just prepare on the peel) with cornmeal. The cornmeal will scorch slightly in the oven, but it will keep it from sticking, and allow more airspace under the crust to make it crispier, and give the crust more character and better mouth feel.
In an ideal brick oven, the pizza should cook for about 4 minutes, at somewhere north of 600 degrees, or even 2 minutes or less at around 800 degrees (coal fired pizza ovens can get that hot).
In either case, the cheese should be jsut starting to get brown and crispy on its peaks, and the thin bubbles in the edge of the crust should just barely start to almost burn.
It is very hard to get a good thin crust pizza out of an oven at less than 600 degrees; but if you use a slightly oilier crust, a rimless pan can produce the desired results, so long as you cornmeal it. You should cook the pizza a little longer, at a lower temperature, and hopefully the oil will crisp up on the hot metal, while the cornmeal gives it enough airspace to let steam out.
That, in fact, is how pan pizza came into being; theoretically in St. Louis in the 1950s (lots of different places claim to have invented it). They didn't have coal fired brick ovens that got over 600 degrees. They had the big Blodgett type commercial bakers ovens with gas burners under relatively thin metal oven floors; and the only way they could get the crusts to cook properly without burning was to make them a little oilier and put them in pans.
As for other toppings, I'm something of a tradionalist. Sure, I love the occaisonal barbecue chicken pizza, or chicken and bacon... but I really prefer the classics. Make it a plain cheese, or margherita (cheese, basil, and olive oil); or give me pepperoni, or sausage (Italian pork and fennel sausage please), or both.
Now I can't exactly miss this one, especially since I have had so many of these dishes in my recipes, and had several of these food feuds hosted here (or in other blogs comments) over the past few years. I started off making a comment on the original post, but it got so long I decided to post the whole thing here and just link back to it.
So, specifically, they chose to address chili, hot dogs, corn bread, biscuits, barbecue, and burgers.
A fair list indeed. It hits most of the high points, and leaves out the limited regionalisms (like steak and cheese/cheesesteak - two VERY different things - lobster rolls, crab cakes, shrimp/crab/crawfish boils, hams, chowder, grits etc...).
Significantly, they mentioned pizza in passing but did not dedicate a section to it; something we will need to rectify here.
It's important to note, this is coming from a New Englander transplanted into Arizona, who has lived and traveled a lot in all the major religious regions we're discussing. So I've at least got a fair bit of food experience in each of them as a frame of reference.
1. Chili: If it's got beans in it, it isn't chili, it's chili bean stew. Chili has meat, chilis, flavorful liquid, and seasonings in it. Anything else is not chili.
Chili bean stew is as good as chili (or rather it CAN be, unless beans are being used in the stew as a cheap way to replace meat, rather than an addition of starch and texture), it's just different. Sometimes you want beans, sometimes you don't. Also sometimes it's better as a topping or side dish with beans, and sometimes without.
Tomatoes (or tomato paste or puree) are acceptable to add flavor to the liquid, so long as they are not a primary flavoring. They can only be a seasoning or an accent. You are making chili, not tomato sauce. If you want a sweeter, more vegetal chili, add sweet red pepper chili puree, not tomato puree.
The same goes for other non chili peppers; but only if you are making chili for low spice tolerant people. Otherwise use mild sweet chilis.
Garlic is essential in chili, but it should be finely crushed and minced, and then sauteed in the fat before the liquid is added, so as to disappear into the chili.
Onions should not be used as a primary ingredient in chili. Onions MAY be added, but only if they are treated the same way as the garlic; used as a seasoning. There should not be chunks of onion in the chili itself.
If you want onions in your chili, they should be chopped raw, served on the top of the bowl, with the cheese.
Real chili has no vegetables in it other than the chili peppers (tomatoes are a fruit).
"Skyline chili"/"Cincinnati chili" isn't chili. If it doesn't have chili peppers and meat as its primary flavor components, it isn't chili. "Cincinati chili" is more of a goulash than it is a chili.
That means "meatless chili" also, is not chili. It's spicy vegetable stew.
There are two primary acceptable variants of chili: Red (rojo or colorado) and green (verde).
Acceptable primary meats include beef, pork, buffalo, elk, and venison. Secondary meats include variants of the primaries, like sausages, beef jerky (yes, beef jerky chili is quite good if you use good jerky), salt pork (great for flavoring a chili verde sauce).
It is also acceptable to make a non-meat chili sauce using red or green chilis, and call it "chili rojo" or "chili verde" and serve it OVER meat; however in general the fat in such a sauce should be meat fat, like rendered salt pork or bacon etc...
Chicken, turkey, or other poultry are not acceptable primary meats in chili. A "turkey chili" isn't; it's a turkey chili verde stew, or "turkey with chili verde" etc...
If you make chili with a fish as the primary ingredient, that's not chili, it's spicy fish stew (which can be VERY good, especially Portuguese style).
Chili should be served either in a bowl with optional cheese, onions, and a crunchy accent (tortilla strips or chips, corn chips, saltines, or oyster crackers are all acceptable); or optionally, as a topping on... anything really. I've had spicy habanero pork chili on top of vanila ice cream and it was delicious.
2. Hot Dogs: Hot dogs are BEST, when all beef with a natural casing. Kayem, Pearl Kountry Klub, the large deli type hebrew national (not the crappy supermarket ones), vienna beef (again, the large deli style not the crappy supermarket ones), or your local polish deli all produce acceptable examples.
Other types of hot dogs are acceptable, but generally not as good. Polish sausages, red hots, and white hots are also good, and are prepared and served similarly.
Turkey, chicken, or other poultry are not to be included in hot dogs. If a hot dog is made of pork, it's a pork sausage.
Veggie dogs, are NOT hot dogs. Neither are "Salmon dogs" for you Seattleites, or "fish dogs" (usually grouper I think) for you Floridians. Let's not even get into the "SPAM dog", you Hawaiians seem to love.
If it's fish in a hotdog bun, it's a fish roll. If it's lobster in a hot dog bun, it's a lobster roll. Lobster rolls are AWESOME (if done right anyway), but they are not hot dogs. Same thing for shrimp, and crab.
As far as I'm concerned, if you call it a hot dog, an observant Jew should be able to eat it (presuming acceptable topping selection).
Hot dogs are best served with mustard, preferably on a doublecut bun (crust on the top and bottom, fresh white bread on the sides, slit down the middle of the top), that has been grilled on both sides with a little butter (much like a grilled cheese sandwich).
If you can't find doublecut buns, I'm so sorry for you, because that butter grilled crunch on the sides is SO GODDAMNED GOOD. However they are uncommon outside of the northeast, so a conventional "hot dog bun" is acceptable; and can be lightly steamed, grilled, or toasted.
You can go without heating the bun at all, but 'dogs are so much better with a heated bun, why would you not?
An acceptable substitute for doublecut buns if you want to get that butter grilled flavor, and distinctive light crunch; is to buy either unsliced, or very thickly sliced white bread (as in over an inch thick), spread a pat of softened butter on both sides, then grill it to golden brown deliciousness on both sides. Slice it down the middle of the edge crust, about 2/3 of the way down, squirt a little mustard in the bottom, then insert and top your dog as normal.
Acceptable cooking methods for hot dogs are pan/flattop grilling (preferably with a little butter), deep frying, fire grilling (or grilling under a very hot broiler, if you are VERY CAREFUL), and steaming.
Boiling and microwaving are for kids, college students, the desperate, and ballpark vendors. If you can't take the extra 90 seconds to get a pan out and heat it up on a burner; or are too lazy to take the 3 minutes standing over the stove to pan grill, you don't deserve to eat.
Yes, I know, for a Massachusetts native this is heresy, because the most popular way for hot dog vendors in the state to make their dogs is boiling. Those vendors are wrong. Boiling ruins hot dogs. If you're going to cook them wet, they should be steamed, not boiled (steamed dogs are just fine. For some dog types, it's the best way to cook them since it softens the natural casing without killing that distinctive snap).
Most New Yorkers THINK they are eating boiled dogs with their "dirty water dogs" but technically, NYC dirty water dogs are steamed, then sit in hot water for hot storage during the day.
Optional toppings include cheese, chili (no beans), bacon (best when wrapped around the dog during cooking), onions (raw or grilled), chopped tomatos, pickle relish, hot or sweet peppers (or both), a crunchy pickle, and a dryish slaw.
Note, ketchup is NOT on that list. Ketchup ruins hot dogs. Mayonaise or sour cream are also not on that list; unless you are in the southwest, and get a Sonora dog.
Some pacific northwesters like cream cheese on their hot dogs... and I admit, a hot dog with cream cheese and bacon is a fattily delicious treat... but you cant taste the hot dog at all. It's overwhelmed by the cream cheese (at least if the cream cheese is any good, and why would you ruin the thing by using bad cream cheese?).
If a side is desired, hot dogs should be served with fries, chips, slaw, mac'n'cheese, or baked/cowboy beans.
3. Corn Bread: Honestly, I'm of two minds on this one.
On the one side, I agree that proper corn bread should not be sweet; excepting the very slight natural sweetness of cornmeal, and the small amount of sugar, molasses, honey, or sorghum, that are often added to recipes to give their crust extra crunchiness, and to feed the yeast in a yeast leavened recipe.
Also, proper cornbread should be made with either bacon, or pork sausage drippings as its fat component; with lard or salted butter as possible substitutes or fat extenders if you don't have enough drippings. Oh and it should be very slightly salty.
However, I absolutely LOVE corn cake, and corn muffins, which ARE sweetened (again, with sugar, molasses, honey, or sorghum), are a little bit softer in texture; and should use butter as their primary fat. Oh and it should still be slightly salty, in addition to being sweet.
Either should still have a discernible cornmeal crunch to them, from slightly coarser cornmeal. If there isn't any grit to it at all, you've used too much flour and not enough meal; or too much liquid cooked for too long.
Remember, you're making cornbread, not polenta.
Sometimes I want corn bread, sometimes I want corn cake or muffins. It depends on what I'm eating it with, and what my mood is.
If you want sweet cornbread, sweeten it afterward with honey or molasses, or apple butter; or just make corn cake or corn muffins to begin with.
Oh and if you tell someone that you are serving them cornbread, don't serve them corncake. That's just wrong.
4. Biscuits: Biscuits are NOT sweet; again, excepting the very slight natural sweetness that comes with a yeast or sourdough leavened recipe.
If you're making biscuits sweet, you're making shortcake, or a cobbler crust. Shortcake is lovely, and delicious, but it aint biscuits.
As with corn bread, biscuits should be made with bacon or sausage drippings, butter, or lard; and should be rich, tender, flaky, creamy from fat but not greasy, and slightly salty.
Like cornbread, biscuits can be either chemically leavened (baking soda/powder), or naturally leavened (yeast, or sourdough). The three styles of biscuit are very distinct from each other, but all are biscuits, and all are very good.
Soda leavened biscuits are generally lighter, with a finer texture, and flakier (and they take a LOT less time then the other methods). Sourdough biscuits are a little heavier, with a more coarse texture, and are chewier. Yeast leavened biscuits fall somewhere in the middle.
All should be very tender, which you achieve by balancing your fat and gluten content; and by not overworking the dough.
Biscuits can be cut, thrown, pulled, or dropped; though to my mind only sourdough biscuits should be pulled.
5. Barbecue: Barbecue... so much has been written about this subject... the holy wars between the regions alone can (and have) filled books.
I'm going to quote what I've written on the topic before in "Barbecue Bellwhethers" (another post inspired by the Atomic Nerds in fact):
First things first, what exactly is barbecue?
Technically, barbecue is any meat roasted over a fire using either direct or indirect heat and smoke, usually outdoors.
There are any number of styles of barbecue, including Caribbean, Argentine, Peruvian, Korean, Mongolian, Japanese; and in America alone, Santa Maria, Carolina, Memphis, Kansas City, Chicago, and Texas style, as well as plain old American style charcoal grilling (which yes, can technically barbecue by the strict definition).
Each style has its own traditional meats, seasonings, sauces (or lack thereof) and exact details of cooking methods; and each is good in its own way.
In America, "real barbecue" , as opposed to grilling, means meat roasted with indirect heat and smoke. The differences then are primarily regional, and involve sauces, seasonings, and choices of meat.
In most of the southeast, BBQ is primarily pulled pork, in vinegar based sauces, often flavored with mustard.
In Memphis, pork ribs are king, with a dry rub. They may or may not be wet mopped with a tomato and vinegar based sauce (which may or may not contain mustard) while they are being smoked. They may, or may not be served with two sauces, one a very sweet molasses or brown sugar and tomato based sauce, the other a thing vinegar, tomato, and mustard sauce.
In the midwest and southwest, BBQ can include pulled pork and pork ribs; but is primarily cuts of beef, including beef brisket, tri tip, rump roast, flank steak, beef ribs, and both beef and pork sausages.
In Chicago, its all ribs, all the time, in a sweet slightly spicy, tomato based sauce with lots of brown sugar; and there may or may not be a rub involved.
In Kansas city it's ribs, tri tip, and brisket, with a similar but even sweeter sauce; and a sweet and only slightly spicy rub.
In Texas, and the southwest, there may or may not be vinegar, tomato, or molasses based sauces involved; but you'll always have at least brisket and sausage.
In California, they have their own native Santa Maria style, which involves smoking above a hot fire, essentially smoking and grilling simultaneously. They use more tender cuts of beef than slow smoking styles, favoring steaks, and tri tip; and the sauce is based on beef stock, and herbs.
If you go to an all round barbecue joint outside of any of the major BBQ regions, you're likely to get some mix of all of the above; though it's rare for any particular place to do both beef and pork ribs, unless they are specifically a rib joint.
If we accept the proposition that proper barbecue involves hot smoked meat; and is not limited to pork (and I do), then we have a first principal to work from, and therefore can answer the question usefully.
The common barbecue dishes out there, that most places outside of an area that specializes in a particular style (i.e. Chicago specializes in ribs, South Carolina in pulled pork) are likely to have, are probably (in order of commonality):
1. Pork ribs
2. Sliced Brisket
3. Pulled pork
4. Sausage
5. Chicken (whole or parts)
6. Chicken (pulled)
7. Chopped or pulled beef (usually brisket or tri-tip)
8. Chopped or sliced pork
9. Beef ribs
10. Sliced tri-tip
Ok, so, as far as I'm concerned, if it's smoked and roasted, to render out fat and allow smoke flavor to penetrate, it's barbecue; even if it's finished with high direct heat on a grill.
If it's cooked in a sauce that may be used for barbecue, that isn't barbecue; unless the meat is smoked first.
If it's braised in flavorful liquids, or grilled, then sauced with barbecue type sauce; that isn't barbecue.
The meat MUST be smoked, the fat and connective tissue must be rendered. You can smoke it AND cook it in some other way in combination; but without actual smoking, and that wood smoke flavor added naturally thereby, it is NOT BARBECUE.
My personal preferences?
I like a dry rub, not too sweet or too spicy, with a long low and slow smoke; and if necessary finished in an oven, in foil, or on a grill, to avoid oversmoking or getting dry.
I like my pork dry rubbed, and wither dry smoked or vinegar wet mopped. It should be served in natural juices only, or at most a very amount of sauce, so I can add as much sauce as I want later. I like both sweet tomato/molasses/brown sugar sauces, and vinegar pepper or vinegar mustard sauces. I like pulled, sliced, or chopped, but prefer pulled.
I like both pork and beef ribs, but prefer pork. I like my ribs dry rubbed, and either vinegar wetmopped, or cooked dry until the end; then glazed with sauce a few minutes before finishing, just to get it hot and maybe add a little caramelization and smoke. I like a sweet and hot sauce, not a vinegar sauce (unless the vinegar sauce is being used as a wetmop during smoking).
I like my brisket and tri-tip dry rubbed and unsauced during cooking, again unless it's a vinegar based wetmop; and then sauced by me on my plate (if at all). Pulled, sliced, or chopped I love all three; but I like sliced the best.
I love sausage and chicken, but I prefer them cry grilled, not smoked; and I like to sauce them myself.
6. Burgers: Burgers SHOULD be a simpler subject than the others, but for some reason is not.
Burgers consist of ground beef, buffalo, bison, yak or venison (including elk, deer, antelope etc...).
That's it.
Some purists insist that a burger can only be beef, but that's kind of short sighted, since it excludes so many other beef-like meats that should be included.
The meat must be red, and come from a four hoofed, even toed, ungulate (bovidae, cervidae, and some caprae like antelope which have red meat).
No other meat is acceptable as a burger. I love seasoned ground pork sandwiches, but they aren't burgers, they're ground pork sandwiches. Same with seasoned ground lamb (hmmmmm... gyros
Mixed meats, or meats mixed with binders such as eggs, breadcrumbs etc... have a name, and it's not burger, it's meat loaf.
Meat loaf is also delicious, but it's not a burger.
There is one notable exception to that rule: mixing in fatty beef or cured pork (in the form of bacon, fatty ham, or salt pork), to add fat into venison, buffalo, bison, or ultra lean beef like tenderloin; so that it will hold together as a burger (they can be so lean that they otherwise fall apart when cooked).
Similarly, chopping up vegetables, onions, peppers, or anything else (again with one exception) and mixing it into a burger makes it a loose beef sausage, or a meatloaf; not a burger.
That one exception, is hot chili peppers. They are allowed, because they are MANLY, and befitting the true spirit of the burger.
As with hot dogs, "veggieburgers", are NOT burgers; nor are turkeyburgers, chickenburgers, or anyother kind of burger. They are simply sandwiches, without the hallowed appellation of burger.
Similarly, even if it's on a "burger bun", anything chopped and mixed with a dressing or sauce, or cut into the shape of a burger; is still NOT a burger. No salmon burger, crab burger, tuna burger etc...
Burgers may ONLY be fried (pan, deep, shallow, or flat top are all acceptable), fire grilled or broiled. There is no other acceptable cooking method... Though if one makes a burger several inches thick, it is acceptable to partially cook it using one of the methods above, then finish it in the oven.
The meat should be a mixture of both lean and fatty bits; neither too tough, nor too tender, but always flavorful. If beef, in general, the best choice of cut is a mixture of chuck and sirloin, in an 80% lean to 20% fat ratio; and chopped just on the fine side of coarse.
Most commercial "hamburger" meat is too finely chopped, to disguise the fact that it is mixed trimmings from many cuts. This makes for a burger with poor texture, that is too dense and heavy; with poor mouthfeel. It can also make for a burger that is tough even when properly cooked, greasy, and even "slimy".
Most frozen patties are even worse. Please, don't use them (unless you have access to the best quality commercial frozen patties, rather than supermarket frozen patties).
Patties may be formed thick or thin, depending on ones preferences. I personally like mine a bit thinner; as while I prefer my stakes medium rare, I prefer my burgers medium or medium well.
For me, it's a texture issue. Rare and medium rare burgers, unless VERY high quality, very lean beef is used; end up having a slightly slimy, raw mouthfeel that I intensely dislike.
To avoid "baseball burgers" or worse "briquette burgers", make your patties like a plastic wheel: A thick outer rim, and a thinner inner hub.
That why as you sear, instead of shrinking away on the outside, and puffing up into a baseball shape in the middle; the middle puffs about as much as the outside shrinks (presuming you use 80/20 anyway) and the patty ends up mostly even.
During cooking, or while being formed, burgers should be seasoned with at least salt and pepper.
The addition of garlic and onion (salt or powder), chili powder, cumin, paprika, hot mustard powder, small amounts of oregano, and a splash of soy or Worcestershire sauce are also acceptable; however at no time should the natural meat flavor be overpowered. These seasoning should only accent and ENHANCE, the natural meat flavor.
It is also acceptable to squirt and/or brush a burger with mustard, hot sauce, steak sauce, Worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, teriyaki sauuce, or barbecue sauce while cooking; to sear the flavor into it (double double, mustard fried... hmmmm); but again, it is critical that such sauces accent and enhance the natural beef flavor, not mask it.
Burgers should be served on a lightly toasted or grilled bun only. If served on any other kind of bread or bread substitute, it is not a burger.
Patty melts, and cheeseburger subs are great, but they aren't burgers. "Lettuce wrap burgers" are most definitely NOT burgers, nor are pitaburgers, or tortilla burgers etc...
I should note, my favorite grilled meat patty sandwich; is a patty melt, on grilled sourdough with bacon, cheese, ketchup, and mustard... but it's a patty melt, not a burger.
Cheese is encouraged, as a great enhancement to natural meat flavor; but not required. Bacon, and crispy sour or garlic pickles are also similarly flavor enhancing, and add an element of contrast in both flavor and texture.
Although I personally think onions, lettuce, and tomatoes on burgers are unnecessary, and detract from the essential meat experience (that's not food, it's what food eats); I can at least tolerate providing them for others.
Acceptable condiments include ketchup (used sparingly please), mustard, steak sauce, hot sauce barbecue sauce, horseradish (again for all of the above, not too much. Don't hide the beef flavor), and pickle or pepper relish.
I have a reservation about ketchup, barbecue sauce etc... Unless a meat is very strongly flavored naturally (like when smoked for example); ketchup, and other tomato based sauces tend to obscure or overwhelm other flavors. Conversely, unless used in excessive amounts, mustard, chili, and vinegar based sauces generally enhance them (unless they are so hot or pungent as to overwhelm other tastes or deaden the taste buds).
Also, never put mayonnaise on a burger (or any other red meat). If you don't want to taste the meat, eat turkey or something; don't waste perfectly good beef by putting mayonnaise on it.
Burgers should be served with chips or french fries, and pickles or slaw (so you have a crunchy starchy bit, and a crunchy sour fresh cold bit).
Bonus Round: Pizza
As with barbecue, I've written extensively on the subject of Pizza, and will quote one of my earlier pieces here:
There are a few different common styles of pizza, including Sicilian, Neapolitan, Greek, pan, and deep dish. There are also some pizza LIKE dishes such as stromboli, and calzone.
Unfortunately, what people from one area of the country call one thing, means something entirely different to people from another area of the country, and another entirely different thing to people from Italy.
For example, in New York city (and places that have accepted New York pizza, or chains that have adopted NY terminology), a sicilian pizza is a square pan style pizza (not a deep dish) with a relatively thick crust, the cheese and toppings laid directly on the crust, and a thin layer of sauce spread over the top; which is served by cutting it into rectangular slices.
That is basically an NYC invention however. In Sicily, pizza is much like traditional Neapolitan style pizza (what Americans generally think of as New York style, with a thin and flexible crust and slightly crispy bottom) only even thinner, and slightly crispier, while still being flexible (it's not Italian style if you can't fold it).
Similarly, what most Americans call calzone, or stromboli, have nothing to do with the traditional dishes they derive their name from.
Calzone is NOT folded pizza, or a pizza sandwich, as is sometimes sold as calzone around america. Calzone is a rolled and baked pastry dish, using a pizza like dough, and meat, cheese, and vegetable fillings without sauce.
To make a calzone, you lay the fillings, along with a dry ricotta cheese, out along the length of the dough, taking up 1/3 the width, then fold the sides over, pinching them together to make a tight seal. Pinch the ends together tightly, and fold over, flattening them against the top of the roll. Finally roll the entire assemblage over so that the smooth side will be baked on top, make some small slits, or punctures in it to let some of the steam out, and brush it with an egg and butter wash.
Stromboli is CLOSE to the folded pizza that some sell under that name, but like calzone, it too is a pastry dish using a pizza like dough. Stromboli however includes sauce inside it. Basically to make a stromboli you sauce the whole crust, then put toppings on one half, and fold over; pinching and rolling the edge tightly to seal. Egg and butter wash as with calzone, but brush both sides, and do not puncture it. A stromboli should inflate as it is cooking, and presuming you made your dough properly, the steam won't explode it.
Importantly, stromboli and calzone dough should contain eggs, and should be brushed with an egg and butter wash to produce a hard, crusty and shiny shell.
I personally like two styles of pizza, pan (not deep dish), and traditional Neapolitan/Sicilian style (NOT what they CALL Sicilan in NYC).
Pan pizza is probably most familiar to you as the STYLE of pizza that Pizza hut is famous for (only when I make it it doesnt suck); however real pan pizza only resembles pizza hut, in the same way that a Lamborghini Gallardo resembles a Hyundai Accent.
Pan pizza is NOT Chicago style deep dish, which isn't actually a pizza at all, but more of a tomato, cheese, and meat pie (not that that's a bad thing).
Let me repeat that. "Chicago deep dish pizza" is not pizza. It is a meat and cheese pie.
Yes, it is a delicious meat and cheese pie, but it aint pizza.
Also, Pizza Hut, Dominos, Papa Johns, and Little Ceasars do not make pizza. They make mediocre bread topped with processed cheeze food and tomato flavored corn syrup.
Pizza has to have a chewy, slightly crispy crust; a sauce with no added sugar or sweeteners in it, and actual garlic, olive oil, and herbs; and cheese that NATURALLY stretches at least 12" while being rich, fatty, and still sharp and flavorful at the same time.
Real pizza does not need marketing.
Pan pizza crust should be a little bit thick, a little bit doughy, and very slightly oily; as the small amount of oil in the crust and the lightly oiled hot pan almost fry the dough of the crust to crispness on the bottom and sides.
In a pan pizza the dough is spread out, and up the sides of a 3/4" or so thick pan. The toppings are spread out bmost of the way to the edge, and it's baked until the edges are brown and crispy. In general, the sauce is slightly sweeter than in authentic Italian style pizzas; though I personally prefer it to be a bit more savory.
Almost always, the cheese is thicker, and usually entirely mozarella, except in the midwest, where they tend to mix it with cheddar.
Neapolitan pizza is VERY thin, with a decent sized crust edge to hold on to; and it should be flexible enough to fold, but lightly crispy with a bit of crunch in the teeth. It should have a savory sauce, tasting of olive oil, oregano, basil, and black pepper.
A proper Neapolitan should be topped with a low moisture whole milk mozzarella cheese (preferably a buffalo mozzarella, but that's very expensive), and something a bit sharper to accent it. I personally like a mix of Mozzarella, parmagianno regiano, peccorino romano, and asiago.
Any thin crust pizza should be cooked either on a pizza stone/brick surface, or a very evenly heated and very thick metal surface with a pizza grate under the crust; so that it heats evenly and consistently without too much temperature drop, while allowing moisture to escape.
Laying a thin crust on a bare metal surface will cause that surface to drop a lot of heat very quickly. It may scorch the crust, and without a doubt crust will express oil and steam. It will cook through, but it will be bready, and not crispy on the bottom (like a typical midwestern chain pizza place).
To avoid sticking and tearing the very thin dough, dust your prep surface, and your pizza peel (or just prepare on the peel) with cornmeal. The cornmeal will scorch slightly in the oven, but it will keep it from sticking, and allow more airspace under the crust to make it crispier, and give the crust more character and better mouth feel.
In an ideal brick oven, the pizza should cook for about 4 minutes, at somewhere north of 600 degrees, or even 2 minutes or less at around 800 degrees (coal fired pizza ovens can get that hot).
In either case, the cheese should be jsut starting to get brown and crispy on its peaks, and the thin bubbles in the edge of the crust should just barely start to almost burn.
It is very hard to get a good thin crust pizza out of an oven at less than 600 degrees; but if you use a slightly oilier crust, a rimless pan can produce the desired results, so long as you cornmeal it. You should cook the pizza a little longer, at a lower temperature, and hopefully the oil will crisp up on the hot metal, while the cornmeal gives it enough airspace to let steam out.
That, in fact, is how pan pizza came into being; theoretically in St. Louis in the 1950s (lots of different places claim to have invented it). They didn't have coal fired brick ovens that got over 600 degrees. They had the big Blodgett type commercial bakers ovens with gas burners under relatively thin metal oven floors; and the only way they could get the crusts to cook properly without burning was to make them a little oilier and put them in pans.
As for other toppings, I'm something of a tradionalist. Sure, I love the occaisonal barbecue chicken pizza, or chicken and bacon... but I really prefer the classics. Make it a plain cheese, or margherita (cheese, basil, and olive oil); or give me pepperoni, or sausage (Italian pork and fennel sausage please), or both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)